Democracy: Still a Retarded Idea

[FUNKbrs]

Think about it. Stupid people do stupid things. That's what "stupid" means. I think we've reached a point in society, thanks to the post-MTV era, where there is no longer any doubt that Joe Earthling just ain't all that bright (sic, you anti-southern fucks).

Then again, you could just look around this website, and probably many of the kneejerk consum-o-trons about to reply to this thread to see that.

So then, why should stupid people be allowed to vote? If stupid people vote the right way, they'll only be agreeing with the intellectual elite. If they vote the wrong way, then the system has a serious flaw where politicians can appeal to idiots who don't really understand the issues in order to get the opportunity to fix the world's various problems.

Therefore, one man one vote is a horribly logically flawed concept. Instead, we should only let the intellectual elite choose the leaders and policies of the future: otherwise their voices will be drowned out by the idiot hordes.

I know stupid people will try to reply to this thread, talking about "rights" or whatever. I don't mind. Luckily, I'll be able to vote regardless, unlike those who prove they don't deserve the right to vote by disagreeing with me.

[Drakim]

Didn't the Greek have this sort of system at some point of time?

[Buffalow]

You seriously think that all adults in the United States have the exact same mindset that they had when they were teenagers? You underestimate the power of the individual.

[Al6200]

At 1/5/08 01:42 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Think about it. Stupid people do stupid things. That's what "stupid" means. I think we've reached a :point in society, thanks to the post-MTV era, where there is no longer any doubt that Joe Earthling :just ain't all that bright (sic, you anti-southern fucks).

Yawn, any evidence/

Then again, you could just look around this website, and probably many of the kneejerk :consum-o-trons about to reply to this thread to see that.

You mean normal people, who look at facts and evidence rather than wild and unsupported conclusions.

So then, why should stupid people be allowed to vote?

Put more thought into this. The alternative is only allowing "smart" people to vote, which means having a national IQ test. Not only does this create a lot of room for bias and rigging (how smart is smart enough), it fails to consider that having a high IQ does not necessarily mean that one will be perfect for office.

For example, Bush scored 120-130 on his IQ tests, but he's been a relatively unsuccessful president.

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/hear d32300.html

(IQ range calculated from SATs, although lower than Gore, his scores are still pretty darn good)

:If stupid people vote the right way, they'll only be agreeing with the intellectual elite. If they vote the :wrong way, then the system has a serious flaw where politicians can appeal to idiots who don't :really understand the issues in order to get the opportunity to fix the world's various problems.

General intelligence is really just the ability to see patterns. There are plenty of other useful skills, and still many smart people do disagree.

Therefore, one man one vote is a horribly logically flawed concept. Instead, we should only let the :intellectual elite choose the leaders and policies of the future: otherwise their voices will be :drowned out by the idiot hordes.

Can you define intellectual? Is that top 2%, top .000002%?

I know stupid people will try to reply to this thread, talking about "rights" or whatever. I don't mind. :Luckily, I'll be able to vote regardless, unlike those who prove they don't deserve the right to vote by :disagreeing with me.

I hope you're joking. You realize how much of a circular argument and appeal to authority that is, don't you? Apparently, if we aren't as "smart" as you claim to be (how you've tried to prove this is beyond me), we must be wrong. That's the kind of thinking that kept Europe in the dark ages - and its decidedly anti-scientific.

Although, I must admit, your system does stand to give the Republicans a landslide victory in the next election.

[FUNKbrs]

At 1/5/08 01:55 PM, Drakim wrote: Didn't the Greek have this sort of system at some point of time?

Which they passed onto the Romans, who passed it on to the Italians, who refined it, and Mussolini perfected it into what is now called "Fascism".

At 1/5/08 01:56 PM, Gwarfan wrote: You seriously think that all adults in the United States have the exact same mindset that they had when they were teenagers? You underestimate the power of the individual.

Elections only work when an entire mass all thinks the same way. Otherwise there's no opportunity to whittle down the candidates because everyone supports their own candidate for their own reasons, and stand up for their own beliefs too strongly not to allow themselves to be pushed aside.

At 1/5/08 01:56 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Yawn, any evidence/

Does your reply count?

You mean normal people, who look at facts and evidence rather than wild and unsupported conclusions.

Wow, you're really working hard to prove me right. Good on you.

Put more thought into this. The alternative is only allowing "smart" people to vote, which means having a national IQ test. Not only does this create a lot of room for bias and rigging (how smart is smart enough), it fails to consider that having a high IQ does not necessarily mean that one will be perfect for office.

For example, Bush scored 120-130 on his IQ tests, but he's been a relatively unsuccessful president.

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/hear d32300.html

(IQ range calculated from SATs, although lower than Gore, his scores are still pretty darn good)

Um... that's the intelligence of the CANDIDATE, not the ELECTORATE. Quit proving me right. I get all creeped out when my predictions come true like I'm some sort of psychic.

General intelligence is really just the ability to see patterns. There are plenty of other useful skills, and still many smart people do disagree.

That only seems to be the case if you're actually quite stupid and ignorant. Life is not black and white, with "smart" people and "dumb" people. If two smart people disagree, it's only because the one who is correct is smarter than the other.

Can you define intellectual? Is that top 2%, top .000002%?

No. I can't. I mean, not because it's impossible for me, but rather because it's obviously too complicated for you to understand.

I hope you're joking. You realize how much of a circular argument and appeal to authority that is, don't you? Apparently, if we aren't as "smart" as you claim to be (how you've tried to prove this is beyond me), we must be wrong. That's the kind of thinking that kept Europe in the dark ages - and its decidedly anti-scientific.

That's right, you must be wrong. It's ok. Stupid people do that, and you're not getting any smarter sitting on the internet.

Although, I must admit, your system does stand to give the Republicans a landslide victory in the next election.

No, my system would strip the Republicans of their right to vote, and furthermore, most Democrats as well. Luckily we'll be well represented in the Independent sector.

and yes, I'm totally just fucking with you. But still, if you know anything about local government (ie, the only kind that really matters to "the people" on a day to day basis) you'd understand.

[Buffalow]

Elections only work when an entire mass all thinks the same way. Otherwise there's no opportunity to whittle down the candidates because everyone supports their own candidate for their own reasons, and stand up for their own beliefs too strongly not to allow themselves to be pushed aside.

Uhh, yeah no shit, what is your point? All people are stupid because a few individuals don't know what they are voting for? That is the point of having more than one person voting in an election.

[Al6200]

At 1/5/08 02:12 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 1/5/08 01:56 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Yawn, any evidence/

Does your reply count?

Only if you can show a logical connection between my message and your point. But even then, you're going to need to sustain the points that you made in your original message.

Wow, you're really working hard to prove me right. Good on you.

How does this prove you right? You really think that people will be fooled by your total non-sequitors into thinking you have any point? You claim that the electorate is too stupid to vote in elections, and I said that normal people, intelligent people fit your narrowly defined profile of stupidity. I see your "meriotcracy"

Um... that's the intelligence of the CANDIDATE, not the ELECTORATE. Quit proving me right. I get all :creeped out when my predictions come true like I'm some sort of psychic.

So are you suggesting that we should let people who can't vote run during elections? How am I proving you right? I'm actually showing that you're very, very wrong: that being in the intellectual elite does not make you automatically able to make perfect political decisions.

Btw, you failed to address my points. You just made a complete red-herring.

General intelligence is really just the ability to see patterns. There are plenty of other useful skills, and still many smart people do disagree.

That only seems to be the case if you're actually quite stupid and ignorant. Life is not black and :white, with "smart" people and "dumb" people. If two smart people disagree, it's only because the :one who is correct is smarter than the other.

Well, you're saying that only some people should be able to vote, so you're the one who's making it black and white.

And besides, do you have any evidence for your attempt to tie intelligence to omnipotence. Do you realize that smart people are proved wrong by less intelligent people all the time?

and yes, I'm totally just fucking with you. But still, if you know anything about local government (ie, the only kind that really matters to "the people" on a day to day basis) you'd understand.

I realized that, but it's still annoying to have someone throw out a seemingly serious argument, and then act like a joker once they realize they're getting pwned.

[Earfetish]

You should have to write a decent essay on a political theory to get the right to vote. Graded by an objective and non-biased evaluator.

Democracy is perhaps more lacking than I ever let on. There are too many idiots. The British tabloids are an example of that. But really, doing it by intelligence isn't much better; intelligent people can have awfully screwy political theories too, like the Nazis.

Maybe we should keep democracy until we've almost completely got rid of powerful government.

[Buffalow]

While I don't think that democracy is the best government style, saying that it is retarded and horrible purely just because your country may have stupid people who vote is a little much.

[FUNKbrs]

At 1/5/08 02:31 PM, Al6200 wrote: So are you suggesting that we should let people who can't vote run during elections? How am I proving you right? I'm actually showing that you're very, very wrong: that being in the intellectual elite does not make you automatically able to make perfect political decisions.

Of course. People who aren't capable of management are still qualified jobs. For example, the head of a local public sanitation committee should be a selected offcial, but that official doesn't necessarily need to be as smart as the people selecting him.

Just to clarify, I'm NOT just talking about the presidency. The vast majority of elections are local affairs, and those jobs don't necessarily need high intellectual output so much as dedication and honesty, something many people too stupid to have guile own in spades.

Btw, you failed to address my points. You just made a complete red-herring.

Got out of that logic course how many days ago?

Well, you're saying that only some people should be able to vote, so you're the one who's making it black and white.

NO, YOU ARE.

NO YOU ARE.

NO YOU ARE.

There, I just saved you like, three whole pages of replies.

And besides, do you have any evidence for your attempt to tie intelligence to omnipotence. Do you realize that smart people are proved wrong by less intelligent people all the time?

Only if the people having it proven to them are too ignorant to see what's really going on. Thanks for placing yourself in that category. It makes it that much easier to be dismissive of your opinions.

Oh, and for proof, how about Einstein? People said he was retarded for creating the theory of relativity that compares reality to a rubber sheet, but recent discoveries have put him right on the money despite many stupid people notoriously proving the theory "wrong".

I realized that, but it's still annoying to have someone throw out a seemingly serious argument, and then act like a joker once they realize they're getting pwned.

Only if you're sitting on your office chair with a baseball bat shoved up your ass. When they get to the chapter on ethos in your debate class, call me.

[Musician]

Democracy with all its flaws, is still the best form of government we have in the world today.

[SEXY-FETUS]

So you have a superiority complex. You're convinced that your opinion is the only one you can reach if you look at things with any level of inteligence, and so everyone who disagrees must be stupid.
You're using the same logic that tells people whites are better then blacks, men are better then women, and basically any excuse people have used to try to justify opresion of any group they want. Democracy works. It has worked well for us even with its flaws. And just because all the decisions made don't go along 100% with what you think doesn't mean it's broken.

[FUNKbrs]

At 1/5/08 03:13 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: So you have a superiority complex. You're convinced that your opinion is the only one you can reach if you look at things with any level of inteligence, and so everyone who disagrees must be stupid.

True. Everyone who disagrees with me IS stupid.

You're using the same logic that tells people whites are better then blacks, men are better then women, and basically any excuse people have used to try to justify opresion of any group they want. Democracy works. It has worked well for us even with its flaws. And just because all the decisions made don't go along 100% with what you think doesn't mean it's broken.

Whites ARE better than blacks. Men ARE better than women. As a white male, that puts me in the top 25 percentile alone.

But no, seriously, democracy does NOT work. In the end, it doesn't make the majority of people happy, because the wants of the majority are by definition varied. However, things can only efficiently done ONE way. It's only when you try to compromise by giving every individual their say do you get a single plan with NO chance at actually working.

I believe the phrase is "Too many chiefs and not enough indians." Basically, we're so busy arguing over who gets what, we forget the hard part is making all the "what" to give to the "who"s. All the really intelligent people are making REAL money in big business and letting the government go to the second string.

Don't you think multibillion dollar companies would use democratic elections as a method of choosing management if it really WAS the best system?

[YuanYan]

You should have to pass a moderate paper based test to vote.

Like when you go get a driver's license, you have to know certain material to get it. You may have to study.

Should be the same here.
They could even give it to you at DMV, where most people register to vote anyway.

[Drakim]

At 1/5/08 03:40 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Don't you think multibillion dollar companies would use democratic elections as a method of choosing management if it really WAS the best system?

Hehe, I'm saving that one. It's witty in it's own way.

[Musician]

At 1/5/08 02:32 PM, Earfetish wrote: You should have to write a decent essay on a political theory to get the right to vote. Graded by an objective and non-biased evaluator.

I'm pretty sure they had something like that in the USA a while back. It was used to keep black people from voting.

[FUNKbrs]

At 1/5/08 04:08 PM, Musician wrote:

I'm pretty sure they had something like that in the USA a while back. It was used to keep black people from voting.

Actually, it was called a "poll tax" where you had to pay X amount of money to maintain polling equipment etc. in order to be allowed to work. Because as we all know, stupid, lazy, ignorant people rarely have a few spare dollars to blow on something as pointless as a single vote in a local election.

It worked rather well.

Today, we have "voter registration" which works by the fact that that same stupid, lazy segment of the population will never bother to register to vote because of aforementioned laziness. Sadly, this has been partially defeated by driver's license based voter initiatives. However, it at least sets the bar at being smart enough to drive to be able to vote.

[Al6200]

At 1/5/08 02:32 PM, Earfetish wrote: You should have to write a decent essay on a political theory to get the right to vote. Graded by an :objective and non-biased evaluator.

How can anyone be truly objective or truly non-biased?

Also, what if someone influential with the essay graders tried to get the graders to fail essays that they didn't agree with. What then? We'd just have an overnight coup?

[SmilezRoyale]

Vesting the power in a group of people, even if some of them arn't intelligent; means you don't have to chance the possibility of a single unquestioned ruler being incompetent. If a Congressmen or senator makes a mistake it's not really a big deal, they're only a small part of the system, plus, they can't keep themselfs in power.

If a Dictator makes a mistake, you're stuck with it just like you are stuck with the dictator.

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/global/th emes/goldenages/IMAGES/dynasticcycle.gif

It's ancient chinese, but it still applies today.

The fact that the term length of a ruler is deturmined by the peoples favor means that rulers have an incentive not to get lazy, that's what democracy ultimately tries to achieve.

[fahrenheit]

I don't think intelligence should be the factor that decides who can vote, but it should be knowledge about the other political candidates. That way the voter actually knows who they are voting for and its not just a "He's a democrat, so I'm going to vote for him" election.

[YuanYan]

At 1/5/08 04:59 PM, Al6200 wrote: Also, what if someone influential with the essay graders tried to get the graders to fail essays that they didn't agree with. What then? We'd just have an overnight coup?

Make the essay non-political.
Like, "Try to persuade your reading audience that Santa Claus is real."

[Jizzlebang]

Sieg Heil, Funk mah boooooi. Declaring an elite group is about 2 steps from Nazi Germany.

Besides, there are too many of us fucktards for your litte mastermind plan to work. You can try, but retarded people always win.

Always.

[Musician]

At 1/5/08 04:48 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Actually, it was called a "poll tax" where you had to pay X amount of money to maintain polling equipment etc.

No I'm pretty sure there were literacy tests as well.

[Drakim]

At 1/5/08 06:34 PM, Jizzlebang wrote: Sieg Heil, Funk mah boooooi. Declaring an elite group is about 2 steps from Nazi Germany.

Besides, there are too many of us fucktards for your litte mastermind plan to work. You can try, but retarded people always win.

Always.

You just destroyed my motivation for everything. D:

[Jizzlebang]

At 1/5/08 06:40 PM, Drakim wrote:
You just destroyed my motivation for everything. D:

Hey, I know It's sad. The fact of the matter is that we're too wrapped in our little protective caccoon of compulsary tolerence, that we will eventually die off since we Haaaaaave to love the downies.

I'm not saying we should kill them, i'm just saying we should abort retarded babies before they're concieved.

[atheiossupremos]

actually, the greeks (athens) had first a system called an oligarchy, in which the richest few participated in. after that, was a democracy, or one vote one person. romans had a senate, a republican govn't, or people elected by "the people" (land owners, usualy rich, so similar to oligarchy). then came good old fasion feudalism, in which lords owed allegiance to higher lords, and them to a king (feudalism lasted about after fall of rome to i think about the middle-late 1800's). finaly, there was fascism, of which i belive we all know what that is. spartans, however, had it so spartans where at the top, then crafters and such, then helots, or conqered people.
i would also like to point out that "literacy tests" where used in the south to keep african americans from voting. i do think that stupid people shouldn't vote, but i would prefer to do that by educating everyone, as opposed to just have a test, very availably to bias, and it's all relative to a scociety.
just my little bit,
-A.S.

[Lagerkapo]

You know, I agree. Our current system will one day be considered asinine and inneficient. I also happen to have no idea how one would implement a better system. You could seperate everyone with one opinion into one geographical locale, and everyone else with a different opinion somewhere else. But fuck that.

IQ tests are bullshit too. I scored a 169 on one in eigth grade, 137 in ninth, and 182 in tenth.
No. If it were an accurate representation of intelligence (which I define as the ability TO learn, not what you HAVE learned) then the scores should be consistent, right?

When looking at past civilizations, and looking at the most sucessful ones, there was generally one or very few capable people calling the shots. That creates consistency. Currently, our consistency is based on the most popular opinion of a people whose opinion is largely assigned to them.

I'm not opposed to a benevolent dictatorship. Look at Cesar. His people were generally happy, progressive and productive. A malevolent dictatorship like that of, say, Pol Pot or Hitler advances a civilization, but at the expense of the peoples' freedom and happiness.

If we were somehow able to find an individual knowledgeable and able enough to make good decisions on every issue while maintaining the happiness and productivity of the people, I'd support him/her/(me, lol) in their "reign."

Unfortunately, we still need to define the qualifications for this office. We also need to learn to find the middle ground in enacting and enforcing laws. Exceptions can and should be made in circumstances that warrant it, and flexibility, to me, would be the biggest qualifier.

[morefngdbs]

One of the main things I find RETARDED about the Democratic party system, is during an election each Party puts forward candidates in each of the districts that are going to be represented.
People vote in each area & we find out who & how many of each Party are elected.

When these people who form the Goverment & the Opposition , if any of them speak their mind on an issue, or go against the Party , they get thrown out.... W T F.
If an elected official to any Party is put there by the voters , no one should be allowed to kick them out of anywhere, except the people of the district who voted him in .
The only way you should be able to be flung is during an election.
That's a democratic system.
We in Canada & the U.S. have Political Parties that if your not rabidly for the Party, your F'in gone .
That's a PARTY system , & that's all they really care about is keeping themselves (the Party) in power.

So Funk , Democracy the way it is now is Retarded , I agree with you.

[svenisgod]

seriously answer to many of the worlds problems

NEUTER DUMB PEOPLE

[Maxben]

Oh thank you for bringing that up. Brainwashed as we are, we believe that democracy is the best system. There was a quote in Brave New World about how it is ridiculous to think that people are equal more than the basic chemical/biological equations (though even that is disputed), so how can we have democracy and equality when it makes no sense? Some people are naturally superior in ability than others.

The Nietzschian Overmanche and the Platonic Philosopher Kings are the only proper system, though neither have been properly tried (Yet the greatness of Enlightened Despots and Benevolent Dictators is unquestionable).