|
| Thread: Small towns |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted January 06, 2009 10:10 AM |
|
|
*smirks*
how so?
you force everyone to vote... UNLESS they fail the "test"
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 06, 2009 10:40 AM |
|
|
Is that the same logic as in, "you force everyone to work, unless they fail the test"?
Apart from the fact, that no one who didn't want to vote would actually have to vote, since they could simply chose to fail the test, according to your logic, everyone QUALIFIED to vote would HAVE to vote, even if they would see fit (remember, they are qualified) not to.
No offense, but that sounds... nonsensical.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 10:51 AM |
|
|
*blinks*
how so?
if you want to vote and pass the test: you vote as normal, hopefully for the right reasons, voting none-of-the-above is still an option... but it will be an -informed- decision
if you want to vote but fail the test: it means you wanted to vote for the wrong reasons (or even put to vote a certain part/candidate by someone else) or you simply did not pay enough attention and should not vote anyway
if you don't want to vote and pass the test: the least likely combination, but always possible i suppose, either way... see first possibility
if you don't want to vote and fail the test: if done willingly, you give up your right to have a say in who bosses you around... you deserve whoever the others elected
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 11:38 AM |
|
|
No, it's different.
The only thing you are actually forced to in that situation is participating in the test whether you afterwards are allowed to vote or not.
Those who would want to vote anyway would have no need to be forced, while those who would not want to could still simply fail the test.
So making the test mandatory doesn't gain and is simply undemocratic and costs money.
Of course having a test to decide who is allowed to vote and who is not is deeply undemocratic as well. It's an idea fit for the fascists.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 11:47 AM |
|
|
*surrenders*
yes, i give up... you're right... its a fascist idea
about as fascist as needing a license to drive, a degree in medicine to operate and other such oppressive measures
i mean, its only about whether or not you are fit to decide who is going to rule the world, right?
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 01:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
yes, i give up... you're right... its a fascist idea
about as fascist as needing a license to drive, a degree in medicine to operate and other such oppressive measures
i mean, its only about whether or not you are fit to decide who is going to rule the world, right?
A license to drive to operate and so on are completely different things. As far as I know a driving license is not a test checking whether you want to drive "for the right reasons", nor involves a degree in medicine a test about whether you want to operate because you like cutting people. What you learn there are the SKILLS to do what you are supposed to.
Now, I'm really curious about what skills and abilities you want to test prospective voters for. What should someone be tested positively for to be allowed to vote. Go ahead, enlighten me. Oh, and if you can name them, you will certainly be able to tell me HOW people should be tested for said skills and abilities and how you want to make sure these things are not misused and abused to let only a certain "elitist" clique vote.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 01:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, you are not FORCED to vote either, and someone completely desinterested in elections simply will not vote.
You forget the core problem of democraty: What when there are only bad choices?
Ever heard about Sunol? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunol,_California
They elected a dog for major, simply because there was in fact only bad choices for the population there.
All ways of leadership got the same flaw, their leaders. With the wrong leader, aka somebody doing a bad job, things will go nasty.
With good leaders, things will go great.
And there are betwhens, the shades of grey that really makes elections the trills.
Lets face it, in any society no matter form of rule bad leaders may appere.
And remember most dictatorships was also elected(if they where by the Norwegian definition dictatorships).
Quote:
A license to drive to operate and so on are completely different things. As far as I know a driving license is not a test checking whether you want to drive "for the right reasons", nor involves a degree in medicine a test about whether you want to operate because you like cutting people. What you learn there are the SKILLS to do what you are supposed to.
A drivers license only means you know how to drive enogh to not kill people randomly, not kill yourself, wreck cars and lives.
You CANNOT get the drivers license if you cannot drive(atleasts its like that over here).
Voting means you as a part of the majority get to select the leaders who in turn can wreck life if they are doing a bad job.
____________
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 01:07 PM |
|
|
*shakes head*
if you believe it is elitism to want voters to know WHAT they are voting... then frell yeah, i am the biggest baddest elitist there is on the face on the planet
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 01:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You forget the core problem of democraty: What when there are only bad choices?
.
.
.
Voting means you as a part of the majority get to select the leaders who in turn can wreck life if they are doing a bad job.
Contradiction. Your last statement would be right, IF VOTERS COULD VOTE ANYONE THEY WANT (in which case L-M would be right as well).
However, they can't.
They can pick between a couple of alternatives (only), which are the figureheads of the political parties and interest groups behind them. If the democratic system allows those parties and interest groups (as democratic and valid), THEN THEY ARE VALID CHOICES!
The reasons WHY someone makes a basically valid choice over another are clearly and definitely not subject of testing.
Period.
If you want to change the system that way that better leadership evolves from elections you have to make sure that there are better alternatives to elect. Which means, that there have to be tests for POLITICIANS, PARTIES and everyone running for an important office, but not for the voters.
This should be obvious. If it's not. you are quite obviously failing the test for the right to formulate a political opinion. 
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 03:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If the democratic system allows those parties and interest groups (as democratic and valid), THEN THEY ARE VALID CHOICES!
Classical american: Communisme is t3h evil! So is t3h left wing! I would rather vote for the right side no matter how far worse they are.
Who said it was? Even if so, explain how a country then can go downhill after an election? Did they select a good party? What if the elections is won only trough bashing the other party?
Facisme in Itali was elected, and Hitlers Nazi wanna-be empire was also elected. Irans goverment was elected.
Do i need to go on?
And also: A country needs desperatly a tax reform, and some other things, if not gained the country is speculated to collapse. But what if NONE of the ones running in the election are proposing they would do that when elected?
Democraty means this might happen, even tho its unlikely:
A: We can elected a leader that will run the country to hell
B: None of the people running for leader is doing what needs to be done
Sorry but mister, i never stated that you could vote for anybody. I never stated anything regarding how things should are done upon the election itself. I never stated there was not organisations/groups running.
I stated they in democraty you could still elect the wrong leaders, or lack the proper choice of leaders.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 03:19 PM |
|
|
Right. But that's not due to people voting "the wrong way", like L-M and some others claim.
That's due to basically everyone can apply for politician or leader, no matter the qualifications.
Which is why I said that if you want to change the system for the better you have to find ways to offer better leaders to vote for, not find better voters.
This was more in answer to L-M, mind you. I quoted you, because the way I understand your post you, too, seem to think that the VOTING is the dangerous thing, since the elected are getting the power to ruin everything. That's why I said that you would be right, IF people could vote for EVERYONE (no matter whom). However, they can decide only between what is offered, so, again, the right step is to make sure that the quality of the OFFERED is right.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 06:17 PM |
|
|
Hitler was NOT elected! He (his party) even lost many votes in their important election. He only got nominated for chancellor because the "bigger" politicians thought he could be better "controlled" when he has that importat position....we all know how it ended.
But just to sum it up again: Hitler was NOT voted by any majority in germany that time!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 06:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hitler was NOT elected! He (his party) even lost many votes in their important election. He only got nominated for chancellor because the "bigger" politicians thought he could be better "controlled" when he has that importat position....we all know how it ended.
But just to sum it up again: Hitler was NOT voted by any majority in germany that time!
During History Classes I heard the exact opposite. Hitler was elected, and made Chancellor, afterwhich he outlawed the entire opposiotn and then blackmailed his coalition to resign (afterwhich he outlawed them in turn).
Well that's how I learned it.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 06:26 PM |
|
|
Check "Election Reichspraesident 1932", where Hitler lost to Hindenburg 37% to 53%. After nominated as chancellor 1933 (by Hindenburg), his power grew, when Hindenburg died 1934. This was the real "start" for him, because his strong counterpart was gone, and there was no one else who felt strong enough to go against Hitler.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 06:33 PM |
|
|
Question: Does that mean he actually did not win before election nr 2?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 06, 2009 07:05 PM |
|
|
The NSDAP was strongest party by far in the July 32 election. However, in the Republic of Weimar the President would name the leader of a party to build a government, and Hitler wasn't deemed fit. Since NSDAP and KPD, the most extreme parties had the majority in the Reichstag they could block everything which lead to a new electgion in November, ending with losses for the NSDAP.
However, the new try failed as well - there was simply no way to find a majority beyond the NSDAP on the extreme right and the KPD on the extreme left with the NSDAP being strongest party.
Therefore there was another election in March 33 which the NSDAP won with a solid 43.9% - alot, but no absolute majority.
They got the majority with the help of another right-wing party.
So the bottom line is, that Hitler was legally elected chancellor of Germany, albeit the NSDAP didn't get an absolute majority. However, in every political system having more than 2 parties - and the Weimarer Republic had ALOT more than that, absolute majorities cannot be gained anyway and coalitions of parties are the rule.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2009 06:19 AM |
|
|
Regardless, we can get back to the original topic: that small towns are not pleasant places to live in, if you don't like that sort of thing.
Also, they typically have bad schools.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 02:18 AM |
|
|
There's always the geek way: isolate yourself with your computer
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 03:04 AM |
|
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 04:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe instead of going to college and learning all that garbage they teach, you should travel around to small towns and learn what THEY have to teach. You might just be surprised.
No, thanks. 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
|
|
