NationStates Jolt Archive

I have spent a lot of time thinking and talking to people and I think the major flaw in our system is that only rich people can really have a fair shot at becomming president.

If everyone truly had an equal shot at becomming president, the chances of two people from the same family being president within 8 years of eachother would be near impossible.

Personally, I am a democrat and I am voting for Kerry. But that is not because I would choose him, but because anyone compared to Bush would be a good choice, excluding his VP.

Both Bush and Kerry come from rich childhoods, and I don't think ether of them can really truly understand what its like growing up in lower and middle class. The differences bettween the lower and middle class compared to the upper class is very huge.

I truly think money should be taken out of politics. Money put to campaigning should be severly limited and every candidate needs equal representation in the media.

I don't know how that would be possible but its just my idea of a utopic government.

I truly think money should be taken out of politics. Money put to campaigning should be severly limited and every candidate needs equal representation in the media.

I completely agree. I think each candidate should get, say, ten million dollars for campaign purposes. They aren't allowed to recieve endorsements, aren't allowed to use any more than the ten million.

(Yes, I realize, the candidates have already drained fifty times ten million.)
I would glady pay more taxes to support a system such as this.

I have spent a lot of time thinking and talking to people and I think the major flaw in our system is that only rich people can really have a fair shot at becomming president.

If everyone truly had an equal shot at becomming president, the chances of two people from the same family being president within 8 years of eachother would be near impossible.

Personally, I am a democrat and I am voting for Kerry. But that is not because I would choose him, but because anyone compared to Bush would be a good choice, excluding his VP.

Both Bush and Kerry come from rich childhoods, and I don't think ether of them can really truly understand what its like growing up in lower and middle class. The differences bettween the lower and middle class compared to the upper class is very huge.

I truly think money should be taken out of politics. Money put to campaigning should be severly limited and every candidate needs equal representation in the media.

I don't know how that would be possible but its just my idea of a utopic government.
The same problem is almost anywhere in Europe too. Though less extreme.

Yep. Our own politicians on Germany have largely no clue what it's like to be an average joe without tons of money.

Very true.

Thats the ultimate irony of America. We are supposed to be the land of the free, but there is such a class division that almost every thing we do is controlled by the elite class. You can't find a news channel that doesn't have its programming dictated by a media mogul. We pay out the ass for gas while the oil companies turn record profit. Choices like who you marry or whether it is okay to get an abortion or what recreation you partake in your own home are controlled by a wealthy religious right.

Meanwhile, we think we are free because we can vote for one of two rich assholes who have no true differences.

Alternatively, instead of spending all your money on commercials and stuff, you could raise 50 million dollars, use it to buy food for people who are starving on the streets, and make a photo op out of the deal, and make sure the press knows about it. You accomplish so much. You feed hungry people, you show that you've got a heart and that you're really going to do something for the less fortunate, and it gets you some good press. While your opponent is busy attacking your war record and coming up with smear strategies, you're actually out helping people.

I think this is only part of the problem.
The politicians will always come with another work around to abuse the system because they are addicted to power anyway.
In France, we have strict laws about party funding and we have candidates like Arlette Laguillet who makes less than €25 000 a year, yet we end up with a "choice" between a nazi and a conservative.

Alternatively, instead of spending all your money on commercials and stuff, you could raise 50 million dollars, use it to buy food for people who are starving on the streets, and make a photo op out of the deal, and make sure the press knows about it. You accomplish so much. You feed hungry people, you show that you've got a heart and that you're really going to do something for the less fortunate, and it gets you some good press. While your opponent is busy attacking your war record and coming up with smear strategies, you're actually out helping people.That would suppose politicians actually care about the people.
Personnaly I trust the red cross more to do the job. This is why I pay my taxes directly to them (because when you donate money it can be deducted from your taxes, I think it is the same in the US).

The same problem is almost anywhere in Europe too. Though less extreme.

A LOT less extreme, and only in parts of Europe. It's not a factor in the Nordic countries for instance.

Wow! That's a news flash!! Never before in history have the wealthy exercised power and influence in society, or risen to leadership positions because of their station! I mean, in every other country besides the US, the poor run things, right? Maybe we should kill all the rich, confiscate their land and money, and then everything will be "utopic". Worked for Cambodia.....

Wow! That's a news flash!! Never before in history have the wealthy exercised power and influence in society, or risen to leadership positions because of their station! I mean, in every other country besides the US, the poor run things, right? Maybe we should kill all the rich, confiscate their land and money, and then everything will be "utopic". Worked for Cambodia.....
When something is not right you have to fix it, no matter if it is wrong somewhere else. In my country there is the same problem, but I want it fixed and I don't care how it goes in other countries.

I truly think money should be taken out of politics.
Yes! I am sick and tired of seeing all these elitists running for office!

Very true.

Thats the ultimate irony of America. We are supposed to be the land of the free, but there is such a class division that almost every thing we do is controlled by the elite class. You can't find a news channel that doesn't have its programming dictated by a media mogul. We pay out the ass for gas while the oil companies turn record profit. Choices like who you marry or whether it is okay to get an abortion or what recreation you partake in your own home are controlled by a wealthy religious right.

Meanwhile, we think we are free because we can vote for one of two rich assholes who have no true differences.

Right on! The truth is being revealed.

The problem isn't that rich guys are always president. If people really cared about electing people that aren't ridiculously rich then we would have. These kind of people run every election and never win even if they are running in the Democratic or Republican Primaries. The problem with Democracy is that people don't ever vote for change, they vote for moderation, they vote for the usual. We don't vote in the Genius, the visionary, somebody who actually stands for something. The majority votes for the guy that doesn't really stand for anything. They vote for the taller guy. They vote for the more handsome guy. The guy with the best slogan. They vote for the guy that the news tells them to vote for. The guy they see on TV the most. This invites corruption.

A small minority studies the issues, studies the candidates history, his track record. Makes an informed decision. Votes their concience. People need to be more cynical about politics; expect them to lie. Don't vote for them if they do.

I think there should be a list of multiple-choice simple questions about politics at the elections. If you answer them right, your vote is counted. If you don't, it means you don't know what you are voting for and who you are voting for, the vote should then be discarded, you must get education for free and vote again.

Or maybe, instead of candidates names, you get a somewhat long list of multiple choice questions asking how you feel on certain issues. Without listing the candidates name, each candidate's stance would be a selectable option, as well as an extra option for "No strong feelings." Instead of a full vote one way or another, each candidate gets a certain number of points for each issue vote he won, and whoever has the most points total is the president.

You would also need to include as a second set of answers to each question "How strongly do you feel on this issue?" with options of "Not very strongly," "Somewhat strongly," "Most important issue to me," each option giving your response a multiplier of 1, 2 or 3 depending on how strongly you feel ("Most important..." would give the 3 multiplier.) This would help ensure that candidates are elected because of their stances.

I think there should be a list of multiple-choice simple questions about politics at the elections. If you answer them right, your vote is counted. If you don't, it means you don't know what you are voting for and who you are voting for, the vote should then be discarded, you must get education for free and vote again.

I think a simple competency test would be great. Really easy questions, just to weed out the real dolts. Such as...

How many states are there in the Union, what country is to the north of the US, who was president in 1984....etc

If voting was done via electronic means, the test would be easy to carry out.

I think there should be a list of multiple-choice simple questions about politics at the elections. If you answer them right, your vote is counted. If you don't, it means you don't know what you are voting for and who you are voting for, the vote should then be discarded, you must get education for free and vote again.

I would be in favor of such a system, with some adaptions: Those that are not able to pass the test get one vote, those that do pass the test get several votes and people that have certain degrees get extra votes because of their competence in areas that are related to governing. You might see how a dr in economy knows more about how the government should handle economic problems than an uneducated teenager who has no clue. (i don't want to offend uneducated teenagers, but it just is). I still believe everyone should get at least one vote in order to give the majority of the people (who don't know much about governing) a voice. If they had no voice, politicians would lose interest in that group.

How many states are there in the Union, what country is to the north of the US, who was president in 1984....etc
What does any of that have to do with any issues that any candidate would effect?

If they had no voice, politicians would lose interest in that group.It is true and we must not exclude people from politics.
I think a good answer would be to have teachers right next to the voting station. Once you fail the test, you are directed straight to the class room, where you get a quick course about the main issues (in 2 hours), and you can vote again. But probably it is not possible in 2 hours.
Or the vote should be counted anyway, but it would give an indicator about how educated are the people who voted for each candidate. In addition to the "none of the above" option, it would give a better picture about which people mandate does the president really have.

Or you guys can read my long post at the top of this page.

Under that system, you don't need to be educated about anything as all the issues and possible propositions are presented in front of you. The ballot itself educates you.

Or you guys can read my long post at the top of this page.

Under that system, you don't need to be educated about anything as all the issues and possible propositions are presented in front of you. The ballot itself educates you.
Indeed. It would be a perfect solution.
I want it now.

I would be in favor of such a system, with some adaptions: Those that are not able to pass the test get one vote, those that do pass the test get several votes and people that have certain degrees get extra votes because of their competence in areas that are related to governing. You might see how a dr in economy knows more about how the government should handle economic problems than an uneducated teenager who has no clue. (i don't want to offend uneducated teenagers, but it just is). I still believe everyone should get at least one vote in order to give the majority of the people (who don't know much about governing) a voice. If they had no voice, politicians would lose interest in that group.

But that would mean I get a lot more votes than the "average" person.

Now, I know for a fact that would upset a lot of people around here.

What does any of that have to do with any issues that any candidate would effect?

Because if you don't know that, you are an idiot and don't deserve to vote.

Or you guys can read my long post at the top of this page.

Under that system, you don't need to be educated about anything as all the issues and possible propositions are presented in front of you. The ballot itself educates you.

But you won't have any idea about how these issues, which can be complicated, will actually affect you or the country.

Because if you don't know that, you are an idiot and don't deserve to vote.
If idiots don't deserve to vote, I think that you don't deserve to vote for nominating that idea.

If idiots don't deserve to vote, I think that you don't deserve to vote for nominating that idea.

Have it your way. Do you really like the idea that people with absolutely no knowledge of history or economics are deciding who is going to run the country?

Actually, I think there should be a four-way stop on the way to the polling center. If you can't maneuver through it without incident, you can't vote.

YEAH there is NO way a kid from a broken home with an alcoholic stepfather, a guy who went to college on scholaships, a guy from say.... SMALL TOWN ARKANSAS could ever be president!

wow you guys have short memories.

Or maybe, instead of candidates names, you get a somewhat long list of multiple choice questions asking how you feel on certain issues. Without listing the candidates name, each candidate's stance would be a selectable option, as well as an extra option for "No strong feelings." Instead of a full vote one way or another, each candidate gets a certain number of points for each issue vote he won, and whoever has the most points total is the president.

You would also need to include as a second set of answers to each question "How strongly do you feel on this issue?" with options of "Not very strongly," "Somewhat strongly," "Most important issue to me," each option giving your response a multiplier of 1, 2 or 3 depending on how strongly you feel ("Most important..." would give the 3 multiplier.) This would help ensure that candidates are elected because of their stances.

But who describes the candidates? Do the candidates get to write their own blurb, or do we need a third party? And if that's the case who appoints the third party, previously sucessful candidates?

And what role do the media and the campaigns play in all this. What if, say, Bush was allowed to introduce statements on the ballot that misrepresent his position. A New Yorker might well vote for the candidate who describes himself as anti-war, but end up voting for Bush despite his or her true feelings. I think you still have to have candidates names sd you can make your own decision from as many or as few sources as you wish, because at least that way you are not limited as much.

First, I don't think a knowledge of history is essential when it comes to choosing a candidate to lead you into the future.


Second, the blurbs about each candidate's position would be written by a team of scholars with at least a Masters in political science. Each party would hire an equal number of people who all come together and form a committee and keep each other's statements in check and make sure that there is as little bias and misrepresentation as possible.

But who describes the candidates? Do the candidates get to write their own blurb, or do we need a third party? And if that's the case who appoints the third party, previously sucessful candidates?

And what role do the media and the campaigns play in all this. What if, say, Bush was allowed to introduce statements on the ballot that misrepresent his position. A New Yorker might well vote for the candidate who describes himself as anti-war, but end up voting for Bush despite his or her true feelings. I think you still have to have candidates names sd you can make your own decision from as many or as few sources as you wish, because at least that way you are not limited as much.
You can impeach candidates if they lied about their ideas.

How about Jimmy Carter? He was a peanut farmer. And most of his agendas couldn't get passed because all the rich and corrupt people hated him.

And also, at the end of all the issues questions, there'd be a final spot for you to actually vote for a candidates name, but that would count only a fraction of the score.

Choices like who you marry or whether it is okay to get an abortion or what recreation you partake in your own home are controlled by a wealthy religious right.
I agreed with everything you said until you reached this point. Yes, those religious bastards run this damn country! Fuck them! Guess what? The Democrats were fucking up the country just as much as anyone else, but did you bother to point that out? No, because despite your fine words you display an obvious political bias that you seem to be unable to recognize. How about pointing out that Americans spend the first 4 months of the year paying taxes, and only the rest of the year actually making any money? You do realize that taxes are traditionally raised by Democratic executives and legislators? And that Kerry's current policies would require either an even sharper increase in the debt, or higher taxes?

Just save everyone a lot of trouble and vote for Jon Stewart.

First, I don't think a knowledge of history is essential when it comes to choosing a candidate to lead you into the future.


Second, the blurbs about each candidate's position would be written by a team of scholars with at least a Masters in political science. Each party would hire an equal number of people who all come together and form a committee and keep each other's statements in check and make sure that there is as little bias and misrepresentation as possible.

What if they deadlock? Who gets the casting vote in the committee?

And what's with the professional credentialism? There is no reason to suppose that someone with a political science degree is competent to opine upon many of the questions effecting the electorate, so why use that criteria? What if the issue is some abstruse area of defense policy or civil engineering? At best, the proposed commitee could only offer their own political spin without adding any real insight to the issue. Moreover reliance on such a system would abnegate those who are knowlegable from making a better choice. So really it would lead to a reduction in chioce, not an increase.

What if they deadlock? Who gets the casting vote in the committee?

And what's with the professional credentialism? There is no reason to suppose that someone with a political science degree is competent to opine upon many of the questions effecting the electorate, so why use that criteria? What if the issue is some abstruse area of defense policy or civil engineering? At best, the proposed commitee could only offer their own political spin without adding any real insight to the issue. Moreover reliance on such a system would abnegate those who are knowlegable from making a better choice. So really it would lead to a reduction in chioce, not an increase.
What if they deadlock? It's not a two party committee...and if they deadlock, then the people who are representing the statement go back and revise it to make it more agreeable to everyone in the committee.

And as far as your second complaint, people aren't going to want to go into the polls and do calculus to determine who to voted for. Political scientists already work with politicians to help them determine what positions they need to take and what not. What the hell? Politicians are policy makers and policy makers get advised by people in other areas (like defense or civ engr) to determine what policies are good and bad. The issues on the ballot would be basic things like "How should gay marriage be treated in America?" or "What kind of relationship should the United States have with the international community?" Not complex questions like "What grade of aggregate should be the standard for road construction in the United States?"

What if they deadlock? It's not a two party committee...and if they deadlock, then the people who are representing the statement go back and revise it to make it more agreeable to everyone in the committee.

And as far as your second complaint, people aren't going to want to go into the polls and do calculus to determine who to voted for. Political scientists already work with politicians to help them determine what positions they need to take and what not. What the hell? Politicians are policy makers and policy makers get advised by people in other areas (like defense or civ engr) to determine what policies are good and bad. The issues on the ballot would be basic things like "How should gay marriage be treated in America?" or "What kind of relationship should the United States have with the international community?" Not complex questions like "What grade of aggregate should be the standard for road construction in the United States?"

Well who else is on the commitee in addition to the reps of the two parties?

As to my second complaint, pehaps I didn't express myself well enough. My point was that not all of the basic positions are best reduced by political scientists. Even if the questions are simple and basic, is a political scientist best qualified to opine about basic infrastucture policy, or should that be the porvince of planners and engineers? More to the point who are these people? Are the "advisors" named before the election or is it an anonymous panel acting in the background. After all, under today's system, with a little research you can find out who Bush and Kerry rely on.

I think adding to the problem is that we are stuck in a 2 party system. Yes there are other parties, but if you vote for anyone other then Democrat or Republican, you're vote is pretty much wasted. The only thing third parties do it take votes from the main two parties. It was the green party they allowed Bush to win in 2004. If the green party hadn't taken the votes from the democrats Bush wouldn't have won florida. (Not to offend any republicans.)

Honestly, I used to like Bush. If you look at his past speeches and what he spoke for, he used to be smart. He used to use big words and know what they meant, but when he became president he changed.

When he was running for election in 2000 he said things like "I would never use the military for brute force" and "I don't think it's the US's position to tell the world what they need to do" but after he got elected all that seemed to change.

I am really scared of what he might do if he gets re-elected because he won't have to worry about making people happy and re-electing him.

About the idea on putting tests on the ballots, I don't think it would ever work. People wouldn't want to spent the extra money on the system, and who would write the tests? Also with election systems theres a lot of room for flaws and corruption. Theres no way to truly be able to track it. And what if theres an error? How many votes could get lost?

I think we need a major change in the system. It was designed back when the only media was papers. With television and radio we have less need for a representative government. I think it should go to Majority Rules.

Because we are a democracy, everyone has the right to an enqual say in what happens. You can't give some people more votes of less votes because of how they score on a test.

Our political sytem needs major revamping. But until people realize our way isnt the best and there is something better, theres not much we can do. We have this idea that the US is better then everyone else and that everyone else should be like us, but the truth is we need to open our mind and realize how many flaws we really have. Tradition isn't a good way to decide the future.

I agreed with everything you said until you reached this point. Yes, those religious bastards run this damn country! Fuck them! Guess what? The Democrats were fucking up the country just as much as anyone else, but did you bother to point that out? No, because despite your fine words you display an obvious political bias that you seem to be unable to recognize. How about pointing out that Americans spend the first 4 months of the year paying taxes, and only the rest of the year actually making any money? You do realize that taxes are traditionally raised by Democratic executives and legislators? And that Kerry's current policies would require either an even sharper increase in the debt, or higher taxes?

I am obviously biased and I will freely admit it to anyone who accuses me, there isn't a man born that was too stupid to not care, or too intelligent to ignore his own bias. If I point out one topic over another, it is because I feel it is more important.

However, I do stand by my statement with the exception of the word "right".
I must assume that there are many wealthy democrats who also have strong religious leanings. But in my opinion there is no reason, outside of religion, to control the things I mentioned. I feel that this injustice is perpetrated by politicians who are responsive to a wealthy class who are more concerned for religious edicts than civil rights.

As for the taxes, seeing as the wealthy elite pay a very high tax rate, it seems that a tax hike would be a very strong example of where the government works for the lower and middle class than for the elites that I was referencing in my earlier post.

I know I'm making a broad generalization but I'm absolutley convinced that a vast majority of people in this country are opposed to alot of the ways the US government runs things and how it has ran things in the past; regardless of party loyalty or ideology or just plain apathy. I'm also conviced that our current system plays our political differences against us. We fight amongst ourselves because we simply have different opinions on issues, while criminal acts go on in government which both sides would condemn.

We choose not to empower ourselves because it takes effort and time and commitment to inform ourselves. For a Democracy to survive, a constant war must be waged against the government (defined as the body of people we give power to). I think the answer is that we teach people how to be a citizen of a Democracy which is basicly how to make decisions and think for themselves, which is most certainly an aquired skill. Anything less then war leads to death.

Also, give power back to local governments. Let different communities run themselves the way that best suits them. Communities should evolve through necessity. Let the environmentalists save the trees or let the capitalists knock them over to build a factory, we will suffer the effects of our choice and hopefully learn from our mistakes.

I think adding to the problem is that we are stuck in a 2 party system. Yes there are other parties, but if you vote for anyone other then Democrat or Republican, you're vote is pretty much wasted. The only thing third parties do it take votes from the main two parties. It was the green party they allowed Bush to win in 2004. If the green party hadn't taken the votes from the democrats Bush wouldn't have won florida. (Not to offend any republicans.)

.....

About the idea on putting tests on the ballots, I don't think it would ever work. People wouldn't want to spent the extra money on the system, and who would write the tests? Also with election systems theres a lot of room for flaws and corruption. Theres no way to truly be able to track it. And what if theres an error? How many votes could get lost?.
I think the fact that democrats blame Green party for taking their votes, is so truly against democracy itself that I would never vote a democrat. (and I'm about as anti-Bush as one can possibly be)

Tests on the ballots is no new idea, but always as utopistic. I don't know if you have these tests in the internet though. Answer several questions and the test tells you who shares your thoughts... The results may be suprising.

I find it amusing that many representatives of American media keep saying things like he looks so sincere, he's so tall, has thicker hair etc. Candidates just insult each other and very rarely anyone speaks about real issues. We have a not-so-attractive female president who has been the chairman of a gay rights organisation, has speech inpediment and can't dress. And we just love her.

This was said during Finnish elections, but I think, in this situation, it's just as appropriate.
If you don't like any of the candidates or you have to choose between two bad candidates, choose the one you haven't tried yet.