The Sinister Design Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: The perfect government  (Read 6438 times)

Xemadus Echina

  • Blue Cape
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 235
  • :D ;D :) :( :-X :-[ :'(
    • View Profile
The perfect government
« on: June 22, 2011, 12:33:01 AM »

Instead of necroposting a thread which didn't exactly fit what I was thinking, I decided to create a new thread.

The point of this, of course, is to create a government, or to just name and explain one (example: Canada's or the USA's government)

I placed this in the political section to promote serious ideas instead of half-brained moronic ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of government: Oligarchy
Ruling body: Speakers (idea borrowed from the Foundation series by Issac Askimov)
Constitution: A basic list of rules would have to be laid out in order to keep members from gaining to much, or even to little, power. 
"Ruler": The first speaker, who basically functions as a President or Prime Minister, The only power the first speaker has over the others, is that he opens meetings and closes them, as well as being in charge of oversight (much like the judicial branch of the US government) 



My idea of an ideal government would work best on a smaller nation, an example being a European nation, and would make extensive use of technology to make it work. (Which is probably why nothing like it seems to exist.)

It would consist of three parts, the general population(voters), a comity of elected people who then elect the actual government(electoral house), and the actual government who creates the laws(the house of Speakers). The speakers hold meetings (which are open to the public in all cases but those involving national security) in a room called the listening room (don't laugh, every government needs to have things with unusual names to be successful. It's scientific fact)

Now the fun part, explaining the three groups in moderate detail.

The voters
Spoiler
The voters would be made up of a group of (hopefully) all citizens.  This group is not limited by age, but by knowledge (yes, a 5 year old can possibly vote for who gets to elect the government.  The beauty of this system is that only the people who can make intelligent decisions are given the right to vote for the fate of a country (What I hate about America [and probably most other countries for that matter] is that some half-brained middle school dropout has a say in my future, if he or she chooses, no matter how limited.) 
To be in this group, a voting license is required and to obtain it a test must be taken and passed (something in the realm of a high school level test, like the SATs but perhaps shorter.)
each person in this group must vote for 1 person in each category (each different speaker position) and the nation is divided into 100 different regions based on population of registered voters.


The electoral house
Spoiler
This group is where the magic of this system begins.  For starters, there IS NO ELECTORAL RACE! meaning no advertisements, no "I'm better because of this reason, this person is worse because of that reason" Ideally, these people are not even named when being voted for.  Ideal conditions would be that each person is assigned a number, and then each person writes an "about me" which states their platform.  With their true identity not being revealed until they are elected.  The only form of parties that there might be are people who hold the same ideals.  They also state which division of the oligarchy they would like to run for. (AKA which speaker)
To be eligible for this section, one must have a voting card, and one must pass a sort of competency exam which is basically a psychiatric evaluation and background check.

The Speakers
Spoiler
This final group is the actual government.  This group creates laws, and they decide matters of national security.  This group is formed by a group of individuals whos duties bear a resemblance to the cabinet of the US President.  The exact number of speakers is not permanent, and may be increased or decreased based on the needs of a nation (I.E. 100 years ago a speaker who was tasked to make decisions based on space exploration may not have been needed, but in today's would one may be necessary)  The way these people are elected from the larger group is based on how the catholic church chooses a new pope.  each person in the electoral house has one vote per speaker (so if there are 20 speakers then each person has 20 votes with a single vote going in all 20 categories) the way this works, is the bottom 20%(rounded up) are cut from the list of eligible candidates, this elimination goes on until there is only 1 person remaining in each category.   
All members in the electoral house must vote for another member when more then 10% of the total members of that category are still eligible to win.

TL,DR: well then why are you even here?

Sarcasm and joking aside,
PROS: there are no George W Bushes running the nation, education would have a much higher place, and the nation as a whole would have room to evolve.  Corruption would (hopefully) be limited and you don't have middle school dropouts having a say in your future (they screwed up their own future, why give them a chance to wreck yours?)
CONS: civil unrest may be an issue in poorer areas of the nation, where not as many people are actually allowed to vote, a smaller government would mean that if corruption WOULD take root, it would have a larger impact, hacking, cheating and various other related issues may be a problem.

its 3:33 in the morning and I haven't slept in 22 hours.  Sorry if this seems a bit scattered and poorly thought out.  I'll be revising it as time goes by (like all good governments, revision is a necessity)  Can't wait to see what you guys can think up!
Logged
im writing a book!
http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=236.0;topicseen
heres a free verse poem I wrote for school
You never know
Just what you will find after you
Lost your favorite thing. But
The important thing is that the
Game you play will help you to get by.

bugfartboy

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2011, 12:25:55 PM »

Well, it doesn't seem bad, actually. I like the maturity tests. One of my pet peeves is that you have to be a certain age (16) to get a drivers license when the people with one act stupider than those without. The highschool drop out thing I don't really know about. For example: Not all high school drop outs do so because they want to. Some of them have to take care of their family and work multiple jobs to support them and don't have time for school. Thoughts?
Logged

MikeW781

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2011, 01:17:08 PM »

Ruling body: Speakers (idea borrowed from the Foundation series by Issac Askimov)
Amazing books. Felt the need to point that out.


Now, I'd say a big issue with a lot of governments today is just that they try to manage to much for the groups they control. The smaller number of people that you rule over, the easier it is to manage. The other issue is, smaller governments mean you have less unity, and you need more good rulers.

Not gonna put down a full government till I have better ideas, but thats just worth keeping in mind.
Logged
Currently tied with Zack for the title of Master of Light!

SmartyPants

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
    • -----
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2011, 02:31:36 PM »

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall retrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."-Thomas Jefferson

Duskling

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
    • View Profile
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2011, 04:05:26 PM »

As much as I'd like to state a perfect government, I believe that one doesn't exist, as every government will, at some point, take advantage of its perfection, and even the government that im2smart4u has stated is not possible, as it is in human nature to want more, and even if the leaders of this government are some of the most honorable and noble men of the generation, they will die at some point, and, though it may take up to several generations of rulers, either a young and inexperienced ruler will lose control of his government and country/empire, or a shallow and greedy ruler shall become dictator and treat the people, rich and poor alike, like dirt. In my opinion, the prime example of a seemingly perfect government falling is the Roman Empire.

I just felt that had to be said.

And while it is not the government itself, but the ruler that causes these problems, a government is not some omnipresent force that drives its citizens, there must be a ruler, or, more often, multiple rulers, and its likely that at least one of them shall have a different idea on how the empire or nation should be run.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 04:23:55 PM by Duskling »
Logged

SmartyPants

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
    • -----
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2011, 04:11:07 PM »

You are clearly an idealist and not a realist.  If you use common sense, then I wouldn't have to post the obvious.

The voters
Spoiler
The voters would be made up of a group of (hopefully) all citizens.  This group is not limited by age, but by knowledge (yes, a 5 year old can possibly vote for who gets to elect the government.  The beauty of this system is that only the people who can make intelligent decisions are given the right to vote for the fate of a country (What I hate about America [and probably most other countries for that matter] is that some half-brained middle school dropout has a say in my future, if he or she chooses, no matter how limited.) 
To be in this group, a voting license is required and to obtain it a test must be taken and passed (something in the realm of a high school level test, like the SATs but perhaps shorter.)
each person in this group must vote for 1 person in each category (each different speaker position) and the nation is divided into 100 different regions based on population of registered voters.
There is a reason that the founding fathers made the voting age as high as 21.  They do that because young people are uninformed idealist (much like yourself) who lack wisdom from experience. To not limit voters by age is a ridiculous concept.  To take away the rights of people because they aren't smart or educated is wrong.  All men are created equal and no one should take away their unalienable rights.  Your idea is no different from Democrats creating literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting.

The electoral house
Spoiler
This group is where the magic of this system begins.  For starters, there IS NO ELECTORAL RACE! meaning no advertisements, no "I'm better because of this reason, this person is worse because of that reason" Ideally, these people are not even named when being voted for.  Ideal conditions would be that each person is assigned a number, and then each person writes an "about me" which states their platform.  With their true identity not being revealed until they are elected.  The only form of parties that there might be are people who hold the same ideals.  They also state which division of the oligarchy they would like to run for. (AKA which speaker)
To be eligible for this section, one must have a voting card, and one must pass a sort of competency exam which is basically a psychiatric evaluation and background check.
Here is a common sense question:  What prevents them from lying?  You need to have rivals and news organizations to point out contradictory statements and actions in the candidate's backgrounds (a similar issue is when people believe a candidate who has no political background which allows him to say anthing without be contradicted).  Here are some examples:
   *A canidate could say they will reduce earmarks and then have them more then double under his watch
   *A canidate could say he will "endorse the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars."  Then he could cut all funding for space travel and fire all the people who worked on that spacecraft unless they are from a state that he won in his last election.
   *A canidate could say that 'no political appointees in his administration "will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration," and then appoint numerous lobbiest into very high ranking positions

You can't keep it anonymous.  There is a need for canidates to be accountable by having voters have access to information about the canidates' political backgrounds.  Campaigns and debates serve that purpose.

PROS: there are no George W Bushes running the nation
I don't understand how that is a Pro.  He was a highly intelligent leader who kept his campaign promisses.  Some people didn't like the results of what they elected him to do, but that isn't his fault.

MikeW781

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2011, 04:40:08 PM »

The voters
Spoiler
The voters would be made up of a group of (hopefully) all citizens.  This group is not limited by age, but by knowledge (yes, a 5 year old can possibly vote for who gets to elect the government.  The beauty of this system is that only the people who can make intelligent decisions are given the right to vote for the fate of a country (What I hate about America [and probably most other countries for that matter] is that some half-brained middle school dropout has a say in my future, if he or she chooses, no matter how limited.) 
To be in this group, a voting license is required and to obtain it a test must be taken and passed (something in the realm of a high school level test, like the SATs but perhaps shorter.)
each person in this group must vote for 1 person in each category (each different speaker position) and the nation is divided into 100 different regions based on population of registered voters.
There is a reason that the founding fathers made the voting age as high as 21.  They do that because young people are uninformed idealist (much like yourself) who lack wisdom from experience. To not limit voters by age is a ridiculous concept.  To take away the rights of people because they aren't smart or educated is wrong.  All men are created equal and no one should take away their unalienable rights.  Your idea is no different from Democrats creating literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting.
The only thing I disagree with is the fact that everybody over 18 magically has an informed opinion (I don't know why you put 21, was that the initial age limit or something?). I know some extraordinarily smart, politically informed and realistic kids in high school, and some amazingly stupid and uninformed adults. In my opinion, the best voting system would be one where you can vote after age 16, and taking a test every time you go to vote. However, the test would not be anything difficult to pass, it would just be on basic aspects of the actual election (i.e. you need to understand you didn't just vote to make pot legal, you instead decriminalized small amounts). The answers would be in a pamphlet you could read before taking the test, and you could take it multiple times in a row. The big thing is, you need a very basic understanding of the issues you're deciding on. Even though everybody who was vaguely literate would be able to pass after reading the pamphlet and trying once or twice, it would ensure that people had some idea what they were voting on. As far as this being discriminating against any groups, the same test would be used nationwide. The only people it discriminates against are illiterate people, and I gotta be honest, if you can't read, how on earth do you make the choice on the ballot?
Logged
Currently tied with Zack for the title of Master of Light!

Duskling

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
    • View Profile
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2011, 04:45:17 PM »

The voters
Spoiler
The voters would be made up of a group of (hopefully) all citizens.  This group is not limited by age, but by knowledge (yes, a 5 year old can possibly vote for who gets to elect the government.  The beauty of this system is that only the people who can make intelligent decisions are given the right to vote for the fate of a country (What I hate about America [and probably most other countries for that matter] is that some half-brained middle school dropout has a say in my future, if he or she chooses, no matter how limited.) 
To be in this group, a voting license is required and to obtain it a test must be taken and passed (something in the realm of a high school level test, like the SATs but perhaps shorter.)
each person in this group must vote for 1 person in each category (each different speaker position) and the nation is divided into 100 different regions based on population of registered voters.
There is a reason that the founding fathers made the voting age as high as 21.  They do that because young people are uninformed idealist (much like yourself) who lack wisdom from experience. To not limit voters by age is a ridiculous concept.  To take away the rights of people because they aren't smart or educated is wrong.  All men are created equal and no one should take away their unalienable rights.  Your idea is no different from Democrats creating literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting.
The only thing I disagree with is the fact that everybody over 18 magically has an informed opinion (I don't know why you put 21, was that the initial age limit or something?). I know some extraordinarily smart, politically informed and realistic kids in high school, and some amazingly stupid and uninformed adults. In my opinion, the best voting system would be one where you can vote after age 16, and taking a test every time you go to vote. However, the test would not be anything difficult to pass, it would just be on basic aspects of the actual election (i.e. you need to understand you didn't just vote to make pot legal, you instead decriminalized small amounts). The answers would be in a pamphlet you could read before taking the test, and you could take it multiple times in a row. The big thing is, you need a very basic understanding of the issues you're deciding on. Even though everybody who was vaguely literate would be able to pass after reading the pamphlet and trying once or twice, it would ensure that people had some idea what they were voting on. As far as this being discriminating against any groups, the same test would be used nationwide. The only people it discriminates against are illiterate people, and I gotta be honest, if you can't read, how on earth do you make the choice on the ballot?
The bold part: I think in some states you have to be 21 to vote in some states, that's why he said "Up to." Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't have much more to say on the matter, however, the voting system we have has worked well for the most part, but I agree with Mike, as long as you know why you are voting, and that this choice is an educated and thought-out opinion, then by all means, you should be allowed to vote, until we get young people like that, the voting system should stay as it is.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 04:49:06 PM by Duskling »
Logged

MikeW781

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2011, 04:47:38 PM »

The voters
Spoiler
The voters would be made up of a group of (hopefully) all citizens.  This group is not limited by age, but by knowledge (yes, a 5 year old can possibly vote for who gets to elect the government.  The beauty of this system is that only the people who can make intelligent decisions are given the right to vote for the fate of a country (What I hate about America [and probably most other countries for that matter] is that some half-brained middle school dropout has a say in my future, if he or she chooses, no matter how limited.) 
To be in this group, a voting license is required and to obtain it a test must be taken and passed (something in the realm of a high school level test, like the SATs but perhaps shorter.)
each person in this group must vote for 1 person in each category (each different speaker position) and the nation is divided into 100 different regions based on population of registered voters.
There is a reason that the founding fathers made the voting age as high as 21.  They do that because young people are uninformed idealist (much like yourself) who lack wisdom from experience. To not limit voters by age is a ridiculous concept.  To take away the rights of people because they aren't smart or educated is wrong.  All men are created equal and no one should take away their unalienable rights.  Your idea is no different from Democrats creating literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting.
The only thing I disagree with is the fact that everybody over 18 magically has an informed opinion (I don't know why you put 21, was that the initial age limit or something?). I know some extraordinarily smart, politically informed and realistic kids in high school, and some amazingly stupid and uninformed adults. In my opinion, the best voting system would be one where you can vote after age 16, and taking a test every time you go to vote. However, the test would not be anything difficult to pass, it would just be on basic aspects of the actual election (i.e. you need to understand you didn't just vote to make pot legal, you instead decriminalized small amounts). The answers would be in a pamphlet you could read before taking the test, and you could take it multiple times in a row. The big thing is, you need a very basic understanding of the issues you're deciding on. Even though everybody who was vaguely literate would be able to pass after reading the pamphlet and trying once or twice, it would ensure that people had some idea what they were voting on. As far as this being discriminating against any groups, the same test would be used nationwide. The only people it discriminates against are illiterate people, and I gotta be honest, if you can't read, how on earth do you make the choice on the ballot?
The bold part: I think in some states you have to be 21 to vote in some states, that's why he said "Up to." Correct me if I'm wrong.
Googled it, the 26th amendment regulated the voting age to 18, where it used to be scattered around the states, with 21 a common limit.
Logged
Currently tied with Zack for the title of Master of Light!

Xemadus Echina

  • Blue Cape
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 235
  • :D ;D :) :( :-X :-[ :'(
    • View Profile
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2011, 09:30:19 PM »

Spoiler
You are clearly an idealist and not a realist.  If you use common sense, then I wouldn't have to post the obvious.

The voters
Spoiler
The voters would be made up of a group of (hopefully) all citizens.  This group is not limited by age, but by knowledge (yes, a 5 year old can possibly vote for who gets to elect the government.  The beauty of this system is that only the people who can make intelligent decisions are given the right to vote for the fate of a country (What I hate about America [and probably most other countries for that matter] is that some half-brained middle school dropout has a say in my future, if he or she chooses, no matter how limited.) 
To be in this group, a voting license is required and to obtain it a test must be taken and passed (something in the realm of a high school level test, like the SATs but perhaps shorter.)
each person in this group must vote for 1 person in each category (each different speaker position) and the nation is divided into 100 different regions based on population of registered voters.
There is a reason that the founding fathers made the voting age as high as 21.  They do that because young people are uninformed idealist (much like yourself) who lack wisdom from experience. To not limit voters by age is a ridiculous concept.  To take away the rights of people because they aren't smart or educated is wrong.  All men are created equal and no one should take away their unalienable rights.  Your idea is no different from Democrats creating literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting.

The electoral house
Spoiler
This group is where the magic of this system begins.  For starters, there IS NO ELECTORAL RACE! meaning no advertisements, no "I'm better because of this reason, this person is worse because of that reason" Ideally, these people are not even named when being voted for.  Ideal conditions would be that each person is assigned a number, and then each person writes an "about me" which states their platform.  With their true identity not being revealed until they are elected.  The only form of parties that there might be are people who hold the same ideals.  They also state which division of the oligarchy they would like to run for. (AKA which speaker)
To be eligible for this section, one must have a voting card, and one must pass a sort of competency exam which is basically a psychiatric evaluation and background check.
Here is a common sense question:  What prevents them from lying?  You need to have rivals and news organizations to point out contradictory statements and actions in the candidate's backgrounds (a similar issue is when people believe a candidate who has no political background which allows him to say anthing without be contradicted).  Here are some examples:
   *A canidate could say they will reduce earmarks and then have them more then double under his watch
   *A canidate could say he will "endorse the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars."  Then he could cut all funding for space travel and fire all the people who worked on that spacecraft unless they are from a state that he won in his last election.
   *A canidate could say that 'no political appointees in his administration "will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration," and then appoint numerous lobbiest into very high ranking positions

You can't keep it anonymous.  There is a need for canidates to be accountable by having voters have access to information about the canidates' political backgrounds.  Campaigns and debates serve that purpose.

PROS: there are no George W Bushes running the nation
I don't understand how that is a Pro.  He was a highly intelligent leader who kept his campaign promisses.  Some people didn't like the results of what they elected him to do, but that isn't his fault.

I'm fairly certain that I mentioned a bit about civil unrest being a possible problem due to the requirements to vote.  I'm also fairly certain that the reason african americans were unable to pass the tests is because of segregation and the utter lack of opportunity.  The problems you mentioned are no longer any problem that a developed nation would have on any meaningful scale.  Also, to call a person an idealist based on a hypothetical situation is just wrong.  Perhaps my wording caused some of the problem, but I would never honestly expect this sort of a government to spring up within the real world.  In other words, when I created this government I understood the idealistic qualities.  Hence the use of the word "perfect" in the title as there is nothing that is truly perfect.  There is always something that can be improved, there is always something that can be added, there is always something that can be removed.

As for that second part, the idea of anonymity was limited to the process of voting.  The reason for this being to discourage "mud slinging" and force candidates to advertise why their views are better instead of why they are better.  anonymity would (hopefully) cut down on everybody making everybody else look like moronic criminals in order to make their position stronger.

Also, I'm beginning to think, smart, that you take things far more literally and seriously then they are meant to.
Logged
im writing a book!
http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=236.0;topicseen
heres a free verse poem I wrote for school
You never know
Just what you will find after you
Lost your favorite thing. But
The important thing is that the
Game you play will help you to get by.

SmartyPants

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
    • -----
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2011, 12:28:37 PM »

The bold part: I think in some states you have to be 21 to vote in some states, that's why he said "Up to." Correct me if I'm wrong.
The Voting Age was twenty-one until the Vietnam War.  Young people began asking "why am I old enough to be drafted to fight and die for my country, but not old enough to have a vote in the matter?"  Since there was no good answer to that question, the Twenty-sixth Amendment was added to the Constitution to lower the voting age to 18.  That means it is unconstitutional for any state to have a min voting age of 21.

The only thing I disagree with is the fact that everybody over 18 magically has an informed opinion (I don't know why you put 21, was that the initial age limit or something?). I know some extraordinarily smart, politically informed and realistic kids in high school, and some amazingly stupid and uninformed adults. In my opinion, the best voting system would be one where you can vote after age 16, and taking a test every time you go to vote. However, the test would not be anything difficult to pass, it would just be on basic aspects of the actual election (i.e. you need to understand you didn't just vote to make pot legal, you instead decriminalized small amounts). The answers would be in a pamphlet you could read before taking the test, and you could take it multiple times in a row. The big thing is, you need a very basic understanding of the issues you're deciding on. Even though everybody who was vaguely literate would be able to pass after reading the pamphlet and trying once or twice, it would ensure that people had some idea what they were voting on. As far as this being discriminating against any groups, the same test would be used nationwide.
Yes, there are some well informed 16-year-olds (back in the day, I liked to consider myself one of them), but the majority of them will vote who their parents tell them to vote for or vote based on a trival reason such as a campaign slogan.  Most high school kids will have a political view that mirrors their parents (I bet all of you have the same views as your parents).  When it comes to trival reasons just think back to 2008, most people below the age of 25 voted for Obama because he was black.  The reason people become more politically conservative as they get older is because the more money they earn, the less they want the government taking it.  Since young people in high school and most in college have mommy and daddy paying for rent, food, car, and utilities, they support liberal programs that tax actual money-makers.  When they are old enough to have an actual income, thier views become much less liberal because those programs take money from thier pockets.  That basicly means that younger voters harm the economy.

As for that second part, the idea of anonymity was limited to the process of voting.  The reason for this being to discourage "mud slinging" and force candidates to advertise why their views are better instead of why they are better.  anonymity would (hopefully) cut down on everybody making everybody else look like moronic criminals in order to make their position stronger.
I understand your reasons before you explained them.  It is still impractical and illogical.  Sometimes mud slinging is needed, because the other guy is a "moronic criminal".  The moronic criminal is not going write on his card that he is a moronic criminal, so you need the other side to point it out.  Don't forget that the over use of mudsling also hurts candidates too.  Remember Hillary Clinton lost to Obama even though she was a better, more more qualified candidate, becuase she was potrayed as a cut throat politician.
(Barack-loving media didn't help either when they refused to acknowledge Obama's underhanded political moves.)

I'm fairly certain that I mentioned a bit about civil unrest being a possible problem due to the requirements to vote.  I'm also fairly certain that the reason african americans were unable to pass the tests is because of segregation and the utter lack of opportunity.  The problems you mentioned are no longer any problem that a developed nation would have on any meaningful scale.  Also, to call a person an idealist based on a hypothetical situation is just wrong.
There was "segregation and the utter lack of opportunity", because African Americans didn't have any political power to change their situation.  Things didn't get better for blacks until the 1960s, because politicians were being influenced by the African American vote.  Is the uneducated supposed to wait for the better educated majority to make the right choice for them?  Sure, white americans gave african americans civil rights which helped blacks become more educated and literate, but that took over a hundred year to do.  Everyone, no matter how dumb or uneducated, deserves a say in what in politics.  I call you an idealist, because you make it sound like there are simple solutions to societies problems.  If solutions were this simple, then someone would have done it.  Books and movies that I have read/seen such as Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, V for Vendetta, Fahrenheit 451, and Soylent Green address that people try to build a utopian by silencing people from politics (usually the lowest on the social ladder).  These societies always end up as dystopias.

Xemadus Echina

  • Blue Cape
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 235
  • :D ;D :) :( :-X :-[ :'(
    • View Profile
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2011, 02:57:10 PM »

I'm beginning to think that you're letting to much of nations' histories influence your view of government.  I'm not talking about "what if the US used this system" I'm talking about taking a modern day country on the verge of revolution or bankruptcy, lets say Greece, and giving it a new governmental system, in this case, mine. 

Also, in response to silencing the population to the government, people aren't being silenced from it.  They just aren't allowed to vote in it.  Another point that I believe you have missed was I mentioned that anybody with just a basic high school education should have the ability and knowledge to pass the test.  What right does a high school dropout have to decide the future of others? Also, most if not all modern countries have some sort of mandatory public schooling as well as assistance for families who are unable to afford it, or in most cases (to my knowledge) that public schooling is just flat out free.

The final point I would like to make is this education based government would only work within a competitive nation.  It would not work with a nation like the US because of the "noone left behind" viewpoint. 
Logged
im writing a book!
http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=236.0;topicseen
heres a free verse poem I wrote for school
You never know
Just what you will find after you
Lost your favorite thing. But
The important thing is that the
Game you play will help you to get by.

bugfartboy

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2011, 05:33:23 PM »

Rainen, it's "No Child Left Behind". And, as I said, not all high school dropouts have a choice.
For example: Not all high school drop outs do so because they want to. Some of them have to take care of their family and work multiple jobs to support them and don't have time for school. Thoughts?
Just so you know.
Logged

Xemadus Echina

  • Blue Cape
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 235
  • :D ;D :) :( :-X :-[ :'(
    • View Profile
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2011, 08:14:24 PM »

I don't think that happens anymore these days, what with welfare and the governments of the world taking care of everybody from the cradle to the grave.
Logged
im writing a book!
http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=236.0;topicseen
heres a free verse poem I wrote for school
You never know
Just what you will find after you
Lost your favorite thing. But
The important thing is that the
Game you play will help you to get by.

SmartyPants

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
    • -----
Re: The perfect government
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2011, 10:58:19 PM »

I'm beginning to think that you're letting to much of nations' histories influence your view of government.  I'm not talking about "what if the US used this system" I'm talking about taking a modern day country on the verge of revolution or bankruptcy, lets say Greece, and giving it a new governmental system, in this case, mine.
You are right.  How ignorant of me to base human behavior off of human history.  ::)

Also, in response to silencing the population to the government, people aren't being silenced from it.  They just aren't allowed to vote in it.  Another point that I believe you have missed was I mentioned that anybody with just a basic high school education should have the ability and knowledge to pass the test.  What right does a high school dropout have to decide the future of others? Also, most if not all modern countries have some sort of mandatory public schooling as well as assistance for families who are unable to afford it, or in most cases (to my knowledge) that public schooling is just flat out free.
They not are silenced at the beginning, and they don't have any power or influence over the government?  The uneducated have to put their trust in the eligible voters  to not create laws that take advantage of the illegible voters.  Russia had a Revolution in 1917 because the uneducated were taken advanatage of when they had no influece over the country's laws.  The powerful elite heavly taxed the undeucated and stripped them of their rights, while powerless to change anything.  In order for the unedcated to raise themselves or thier kids to a higher social class, they need to have the power to prevent the higher class from removing opportunities.

I don't think that happens anymore these days, what with welfare and the governments of the world taking care of everybody from the cradle to the grave.
If that is true, then why is the number of people Americas who go hungry so high?
Pages: [1] 2