Democracy, Election et all.

positron

I read in the NATO thread that the democracy is 51% game, and if 51% decides to kill the other 49%, it's still democratically correct. Scary thought!

So I was just thinking.. (big mistake, I know, but bare with me for a second), what is the big idea with giving everyone a vote each. While majority are normal people (duh!) some of them could be thugs, rapists, pedophiles, drunks, demented, or just stupid etc? Shouldn't the law protect the election process from being ruined by the "bad ones"? Some sort of weighted voting - based on the persons PRSI contributions or something!!

Okay okay, I will just get my fascist coat and get out of here...!

Sykk

It's okay guys I got this one..


What?

Revolution9

positron wrote: »

Okay okay, I will just get my fascist cot and get out of here...!

You let your child sleep in a fascist cot?

That's how Hitler turned out so bad you know, can't get a good nights sleep in them things and turn out kranky for life.

Jimmy the Wheel

positron wrote: »

I read in the NATO thread that the democracy is 51% game, and if 51% decides to kill the other 49%, it's still democratically correct. Scary thought!

Or to put it another way democracy is a 'tyranny of the majority'.

positron

love ninja editing!

Trog

1. Why would a murderer, or a rapist not be intelligent enough not to know who the best government would be? Does he have zero human rights because he committed a crime? (Not condoning rape or murder)

2. Who decides which people are more apt to make these decisions?
Is anyone who offends your morality to a certain extent to be excluded? If so who decides on the morals, which are merely social norms, and subjective?

3. What if this is decided upon then 51% of the population turns into a drunk? Do the majority of people not deserve to vote?

ART6

Trog wrote: »

1. Why would a murderer, or a rapist not be intelligent enough not to know who the best government would be? Does he have zero human rights because he committed a crime? (Not condoning rape or murder)

But surely there are some crimes that are inhuman. I would say that rape, and murder if premeditated are inhuman, as is the abuse of children. They fly in the face of human nature. Such perpetrators may be intelligent enough to know who the best government would be, but why should they be given the opportunity to express an opinion when they have deliberately abandoned humanity?

positron

Trog wrote: »

2. Who decides which people are more apt to make these decisions?

A medical panel + judge (I know this is not a scalable plan - but may be there are other easier ways to do this) - a bit like how doctors can classify some people as mentally unstable, or suicidal or dangerous to others etc.

I was thinking more like running the country like a enterprise, or a 'for profit' company. Of course the profits gets divvied up between the people, but like share holders of a company, people with more shares / more interest in the country will get more weight to their vote.

As extreme examples, if someone did really well for the country, their vote should be weighted 400% while someone who hasn't achieved much and isn't pulling the weight should have their vote diluted by 4 - So in over all scheme of things, those who work hard for the country will get more of a say in who rules the country... etc.. well, like I said, I shouldn't have even started thinking....

Trog

ART6 wrote: »

But surely there are some crimes that are inhuman. I would say that rape, and murder if premeditated are inhuman, as is the abuse of children. They fly in the face of human nature. Such perpetrators may be intelligent enough to know who the best government would be, but why should they be given the opportunity to express an opinion when they have deliberately abandoned humanity?

Hmm, that's a very difficult to support view. Because they have committed a crime which denies the humanity of others, should we then deny their humanity? Does this not make us in some way guilty of a similar crime?
What about the mentally ill? If someone who has a severe condition kills someone, then gets help and learns right from wrong, is he to have no rights? It is ludicrous to suggest that the mentally ill be denied a vote because of their illness, and it is equally ludicrous to call such a crime a denial of humanity. (Although it should still be punished).

Who decides what is humaine and what is not? Is this not merely a subjective societal norm? I'm not suggesting that there's a situation where it's ok to abuse children, but with a view like yours it's hard to argue against the inhumanity of smaller crimes in certain societies. For example abortion is considered inhuman by some, and considered a great liberty by others. Condoms were considered in a similar vein in this very country not too long ago.

Trog

positron wrote: »

A medical panel + judge (I know this is not a scalable plan - but may be there are other easier ways to do this) - a bit like how doctors can classify some people as mentally unstable, or suicidal or dangerous to others etc.

I was thinking more like running the country like a enterprise, or a 'for profit' company. Of course the profits gets divvied up between the people, but like share holders of a company, people with more shares / more interest in the country will get more weight to their vote.

How are they appointed and what kinds of standards are we applying here? Surely the only way to apply a standard is to take the entire population's view into consideration, hence reverting back to democracy? Otherwise you're just making an arbitrary standard based on one person's view. (and how do we know that person is apt to make that decision, since we're questioning that?)

As extreme examples, if someone did really well for the country, their vote should be weighted 400% while someone who hasn't achieved much and isn't pulling the weight should have their vote diluted by 4 - So in over all scheme of things, those who work hard for the country will get more of a say in who rules the country... etc.. well, like I said, I shouldn't have even started thinking....

Hitler did **** loads for his country before he started the ethnic cleansing and all. He was even time magasine's man of the year.
If I do something good for the country do I know more about politics than others?

positron

Trog wrote: »

Because they have committed a crime which denies the humanity of others, should we then deny their humanity? Does this not make us in some way guilty of a similar crime?

Don't we already do this by locking people up, is that not denying them something? How different is the right to vote to that? I guess it's accepted norm that when someone pertetrates crime, they automatically lose some of their social previledges. Like how pedos lost their right to privacy - their details goes on the list etc.

Trog wrote: »

What about the mentally ill? If someone who has a severe condition kills someone, then gets help and learns right from wrong, is he to have no rights?

Again, don't we do this already? People of unsound mind, if percieved to be dangerous, are regularly denied right to roam freely. And we don't allow even mildly epileptic people drive motor vehicles. Is that not denying them human rights? So we kinda do this already really.

positron

Trog wrote: »

How are they appointed and what kinds of standards are we applying here? Surely the only way to apply a standard is to take the entire population's view into consideration, hence reverting back to democracy?

Very good point indeed! Sure, you can get laws like this thru because the bad/demented people won't care anyway!

Trog

positron wrote: »

Don't we already do this by locking people up, is that not denying them something? How different is the right to vote to that? I guess it's accepted norm that when someone pertetrates crime, they automatically lose some of their social previledges. Like how pedos lost their right to privacy - their details goes on the list etc.



Again, don't we do this already? People of unsound mind, if percieved to be dangerous, are regularly denied right to roam freely. And we don't allow even mildly epileptic people drive motor vehicles. Is that not denying them human rights? So we kinda do this already really.

Good points. I disagree about the denial of the right to roam freely etc, there are some silly laws and stuff, but generally the mentally ill are looked after for their own good. Whether or not the methods are correct, they are not aimed at punishment.

We do deny prisoners' rights alright, as a means of punishment. But the denial of the right to vote leads to a situation where a corrupt government need only to get people convicted if they are dissenters. The democratic system is designed to protect against corrupt governments, especially fascist ones. It has a lot of flaws, but for it to work, NO standard can deny an adult the right to vote.

This is the weaker of my arguments, but I stand by my view that any such standard to disallow voting is either arbitrary or irrelevant to the political process.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

People who vote according to family rites should be banned from voting before paedophiles, drunks or anyone not in prison or an insane asylum.

Also, didn't Florida deny anyone with a criminal record to vote, thus allowing the "good" people of the state to allow GWB to advance to the White House?

Mr. Spock

Voting is a right, not a privilege.

Mike 1972

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Also, didn't Florida deny anyone with a criminal record to vote,

Or anyone with the same name as someone with a criminal record

ejmaztec

positron wrote: »

.

Positron, the home of scary thoughts since March 2004.

biko

Because democracy means one person one vote, it's the best/simplest way to determine the people's will, not just a part of the people.

When people say "why don't we remove the vote for some?" they never mean themselves, it's always someone else that shouldn't be allowed a voice.

Manic Moran

My personal favourite description is "A Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner."

The defence for most nations from the tyranny of the majority are the rights enshrined in a nation's Constitution, most of which are by today's standards pretty reasonable. Failing that, it's down to judges attempting to rely on common law concepts which usually won't trump active legislation.

When people say "why don't we remove the vote for some?" they never mean themselves, it's always someone else that shouldn't be allowed a voice.

True, but on the other hand, such cases these days tend to require a positive act by the potential voter. It's no longer a case of "You were born a woman, so by no fault of your own you can't vote," it's more a case of "these are the rules, you know them, if you choose to break the rules and are convicted of a felony by a jury of your peers, your actions have meant that you have forfeited the right to vote"

NTM

StupidLikeAFox

We are all equal, but some are more equal than others!