Power to the People?

[cavalier]

Wil, I love what you're saying.

For anyone thinking that yes, everyone should have a direct say in their country's constitution, I ask to read Wil's first post on this thread. You know he's right.

[InLove]

So both of you are of the opinion that the average American voter is just so ignorant that it is to his or her own benefit to reinforce the devaluation of the individual vote. Surely I must be misreading you?

[wil]

Originally Posted by InLove

I don't know, wil. Are you sure you are not underestimating the American people? I mean, wasn't it the American people who protested so loudly and with their lives that brought forth the change in the legislation back in the 60's?

You've hit it on the nose...How many protested?? 1%?? And that is enough to get folks thinking... Those folks were the activists, the ones that saw the need for change...the rest were watching television...and often changed the channel as they spoke terrible words of those protesting cutting in on their Andy Griffith reruns...

That is the power of the people, public outcry, demonstrations big enough to get the legislators to move and make the hard decisions...I still say despite the protests if the votes were counted in the 60's civil rights would have been voted down worse than 60/40...

Originally Posted by InLove

So both of you are of the opinion that the average American voter is just so ignorant that it is to his or her own benefit to reinforce the devaluation of the individual vote. Surely I must be misreading you?

If we took a vote today the American public would vote to deport every illegal alien...and build a wall on the border... The same Americans that cheered when the Berlin wall came down....the same Americans that are all descendants of immigrants... The cost would be billions of dollars in locating, trying and deportation costs...and then billions of dollars in lost labor...all creating inflation and interest rates like we haven't seen since Carter...

Yes we elect representatives who can have cooler heads, discuss, argue, work out the issues....if it is put on a referendum we would vote ourselves bankrupt. California is an example of a state that often votes based on referendums...their state tax revenue is high due to the industry there, despite that they have huge economic problems....any other state wouldn't have lasted near as long...and that house of cards may yet collapse.

Up until 1929 under Democracy you would have found also known as mobocracy in the dictionary...in this day of sound bites and the oligarchy easily swaying public opinion thru the media....the last definition (2) scares the heck outta me!

Ochlocracy (Greek: οχλοκρατία or ohlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional authorities. In English, the word mobocracy is sometimes used as a synonym. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it's akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the easily moveable crowd."
mobocracy definition

n. pl. mob·oc·ra·cies 1. Political control by a mob.
2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.

[InLove]

Oh say can you see, InLove? Maybe. I'm thinking about it....considering your words, wil.

Just a thought here, before I log out and ponder not only this conversation, but this stack of chores I must attempt to get though with some measure of joy today....

I am contemplating what you have stated here, wil:

We are not even doing well at the ability to vote conscious intelligent people into office. Our constitution required we elect representative and Senators were appointed we should return to that so as to loosen the grip of the voter...to offset that loss we should also return to Vice Presidents being the person who comes in second in the electoral college...returning that power to the voter...

I don't understand how trusting unreliable politicians who are already in power to appoint their favored politicians to support them in their respective causes is in the interest of the individual voter.

Need I remind you that it was not the popular vote that initially put the present administration into power? And I might also just throw this out here for consideration...I don't ever remember once in my lifetime ever being asked to contribute to a political opinion poll to be posted on the evening news, so when I read those numbers and statistics, I generally take it with a grain of salt, although I can surely understand why the current info tends to reflect dissatisfaction....

I'd better stop now, I think, or I will begin naming names.

I am in favor of the popular vote. I think that the majority is virtually silent, but that when its vote shows signs of being ignored, its voice begins to be more audible. True, it takes a wake-up call sometimes, but I still don't see one-person-one-vote as "mob rule". There are supposed to be checks and balances, and I don't believe that the average American has become so dull that we cannot recognize when it is not working. If we need to speak up, then let us speak up. But let's do it to "get the vote out" and not to suppress it.

As you can see, I'm not convinced. But I am listening.

InPeace,
InLove

[wil]

yeah the electoral college, interesting bird. A few states are REQUIRED to vote the way the populous in their state votes, a couple match percentages to their state, and the rest the electoral college can actually negate the states vote...their choice...

As for the people I've got to clarify myself....do you know less than 10% wanted Independence from England? Most were apathetic, they just wanted to farm, hunt, live...the rest were loyalists...less than 10% wanted to revolt.

That is the 10% I trust...the 10% that marches on Washington for civil rights, the 10% that is vocal enough to stand up and be counted...the 10% that says I ain't gonna take it anymore.

Why would I like the VP to be number 2....to break the two party system....why would I like appointed Senators? To break the career politician...2 senators per state....like one can represent HALF of Texas?? Local Representatives...we vote for them...it'll focus our attention and insure we don't have our whole state to blame for the decision...

Costa Rica elected a Nobel Prize winner for President....why don't we elect Nobel Prize winners?? 90% of the voters don't watch the debates, don't watch the State of the Union message and don't know what their candidates policy papers look like... Only what 40% of us vote?? I wouldn't want to encourage the others...if they don't have the gumption to get to the polls I don't want them pulling levers!

I've never missed an election since I was old enough to vote, my kids and I have better political discussions at dinner than I can have with the folks in my office....my kids are better informed...and base decisions on more than soundbites.

[Francis king]

...i think that voter apathy is a completely different issue than whether the majority of ordinary folks have the intellectual capacity to make considered political decisions, yet if they do not, then why do we have juries? why do we have a jury of our peers to sit in judgement upon us in court if, overall, ppl lack capacity to make such important decisions?

most ppl have an IQ in the range of... 90 to 120. Those beyond 120 are considered to be exceptionally bright. Those who have an IQ of less than 90 we view as being those with special educational needs. Less than 70, and fifty years ago we officially called them "subnormal", and "idiots", and we locked them away "...lest they weakened the nation's stock..."

Yet today we do not deem ppl to lack the capacity to make legal and financial decisions for themselves simply because they are less intelligent than the average human- instead, we modify the same information everyone else gets, we use simpler sentence structures, we use more pictures and colours, or we find novel ways to present the information, and bingo- it sinks in. Usually. It is only when a person has a condition like Alzheimers, brain damage, or severe psychosis does the state deem them to be without capacity, and for good reason.

You can teach children pretty complex physics, if you present the information to them in a digestible format, so why should educating adults about politics be any more difficult?

in the uk, the majority of ppl do not vote because they are sensible enough to realise that their little X is the box is worthless... they are not foolish enough to think that they influence politics by making a little kiss mark in a box every couple of years. We know that politicians lie, that even the best of them are vainglorious and shallow, and we hold them in little esteem.

We marched, we waved banners, we did all those things which we thought would help, and yet they did not. As for ppl not wanting to be involved- there was millions of ppl marching in anti war demonstrations around the country, but the politicians ignored us all.

We had a chance then, to take to the streets, to sing the chemical brothers-Galvanize, and Eminem songs while we marched through the storm, but most ppl just want an easy life, really, and in relative terms, we have an easy enough life.

My utopia? government would be controlled, not by supposedly elected representatives all earning around 100K a year before expenses (of around 130K), each, not including backhanders- I would have the country's decisions made by it's teenagers.

Like national service was once compulsory, I would make it compulsory that all those who had capacity served two years in government. The first year they would get instruction in ideas and ideologies, and the second year they would make decisions based on facts to benefit the nation. They would be fed, and accomodated, and also given a small allowance. Much like government today there would be regions, and departments, and there would be a list of topics to be addressed; education, welfare, taxes, enviromental issues, policing, etc, etc, and each new cohort would decide on each new years' decisions.

Then- there is no spin, no political parties vying for the attention of the people. There would be no media campaigns, no government money spent on advertising. I would rather put my future into the hands of some well intended bright eyed teenie boppers who understood their function was to make decisions to benefit our society than some old grey haired Etonian who wants to make deals to benefit only his own interests...

incidentally, I had hopes for Gordon Brown, but he has dissapointed me by wanting more nuclear power and wanting to keep trident up and running... he's building more houses too, but they're not council houses... same old, same old... wonder what his dad would say..?

[cavalier]

Interesting that this thread has turned into a debate on democracy and voting. Though I do think this is very worthy of debate, the question I asked in the beginning was whether everyone should have a say in the constitution, it wasn't my intention at that point to question deomcracy.

Ok, fair enough though, the thread has evolved. Interesting idea Francis, I do think there are some flaws though. Who would teach these teenagers? Who would decide what they would be taught, surely there is huge potential here for manipulation.

I have no doubt that you know a lot more about British politics than I, but could you be dismissing Gordon Brown too quickly? He can't please all the people all the time.

[cavalier]

I am sure you're right, that people don't vote because they don't see the point, but this is strange to me. One vote doesn't count for a lot, but it counts more than no vote. If you want more power, more control, then get organized, start petitions, campaigns, rallies, marches, hell even go into politics and make a change from the inside. But don't give up one of the powers to which you are entitled.
As for the anti-war march not working, two things, 1, how do you know it isn't working? 2, the campaign didn't last very long. People power does work, but it often takes a long time.

[paul]

In many ways i think the majority opinion is usually wrong.
So i would think maybe the majority vote.

Who then should have the say.

Undoubtedly i think the most compassionate, the most just, the most caring people in the world and our countries.

But how could we ever always have such people running our countries?

It has never happened all throughout history, there may have been some good leaders at some time, but not continually.

I agree with Gandhi, " we must be the change we wish to see in the world."

We can influence other people, by living by love and compassion, we can make a change in our own towns, our own families.
It's not so much the government that does.

It's good if there are good people in government, but there need to be good people everywhere.
It's not so much just a problem of government, but all people in every position.

I think we may find throughout history and still today, it's not always the government that are the change we need in this world, but usually individuals, people and organizations who start out and may continue to exist never having any government support.

Hospices, the one who worked with me, does have a little government support, but only a little and relies mostly on donations and fundraising.
I know the district nurses work very closely with them, and they are N.H.S., government run, they are the U.K. medical service.

Maybe then it's a bit of both working together, and the Hospice nurse who visited me, told me she wouldn't want to be government run.

Charities all over the world, may try to work alongside some governments, but are usually starting by individuals without any government support.
I find then that it is not always governments that make the real needed changes, but maybe sometimes it is them who neglect their people, and maybe not even them who are to solely blame, but maybe it is many of us neglect our own people, and our own kind- humankind.

I don't see it as a peoples vote, or even always a government that makes the needful changes.
But a love that drives individual people, whether in government, in our families, workplaces, schools, our communities.
I think we each, everyone of us, has as much power as any government figure to make the neccesary changes, i think it's just a case, of each one of us, if we live to the potential change we can be in this world, in our own lives and other peoples.

[Tao_Equus]

I once read an SF novel, forgot its title, in which society had replaced the idea of a jury with individuals called Fair Witnesses. These people were selected when young because they displayed unusual empathy, and if they chose to take up the training would go into a cloistered retreat shielded from mass media and its trendy opinions. There they would learn law and its precedents. Once trained they remained in monk like detachment from society so that they were not exposed to bias and could perform the duty of deciding issues in court completely fairly. Like your idea Francis they were young and their 'service' in this capacity was time limited. I liked the idea applied to law because a jury is too often manipulated by character, a charismatic lawyer or the biased direction of a judge, or the personal prejudices of jury members themselves. But of course this was just a story and the ideal scenario proposed would probably fall apart in reality.

The idea of government being drafted from wider society as a whole is an idea I have long espoused myself. Anyone who wants to go into politics is probably the least suited to the needs of society. Making political service a duty everyone must perform at some time in their life would ideally be a good way to make people more interested but would require a constitution that offered protection from stupidity. Soon every home in the land will have a digital set top box, this big brother device could be harnessed to let the population vote on every commons motion. Now that would be democracy. The trouble is the masses are pretty apathetic and radical fringe opinions would dominate.

So basicly the system as it stands is in my opinion still the best framework for a legislature. But I would like to make some changes. Anyone going into politics should be forced to swear allegiance to the people and not the crown, that they relinquish all other ties to any business or group for life. In effect they agree to become slaves of parliament till they die. In return they should get paid well and a healthy pension. Political corruption should become a crime that is rigorously scrutinised for by an independent body and carry punishment so severe that it becomes an option no sane person would consider. The crime of corruption by nepotism or to associates should carry even tougher sentencing on all parties.

Like you Francis I do not like Gordon Brown. His history is one of collusion with the power base that took us to Iraq and he only now distances himself from Bush in order to enhance his chances at the next election. This collusion has a long history. He was attending secret meetings before labour ever took power with the same people who have made countless billions on the back of these wars.

Tao

[cavalier]

Compulsory voting anyone?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Compulsory voting anyone?

Yes!! Along with genuine proportional representation.

[wil]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Compulsory voting anyone?

no way! Same reasons as stated before...

Why can't we educate the public...because they don't have education as a priority...they don't watch or listen to C-span..they prefer rock or rap or opera or the sitcoms, they won't listen to debates they prefer their regular shows, the don't read the Wall Street Journal...they prefer the Globe or Entertainment Weekly...

The ratings and circulation show this as fact..not conjecture..

[Francis king]

...thats a ridiculous notion, wil.. if you listen, you will find ppl being educated about politics everywhere u look- in rap- the dissafected poor kids trying to rise above the poverty vested on them by the state, in the soap opera you will find most important issues are debated via the medium of drama- we side with shannon, the single mom, who can't get maintenance from Beefy Brian, the wife beater, the public notices, and suddenly ppl start talking about it on chat shows, and political programmes, the publics consciousness is raised, and eventually things change...

I am in a Gilbert and Sullivan piece now, and in this piece we have an alcoholic judge who divorced the ugly daughter of the nob he married to further his career who is now sitting to try a breach of promise of marriage, how ironic, and at the same time very political... jerry springer- the opera- eminem, pink floyd- Tracy Chapman- all political... u just have to look...

we are all interested in politics-

politics

1. (used with a sing. verb)
a. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.b. Political science.

2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) a. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: b. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: 3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) ie: Political life:

4. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: 5. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political attitudes and positions:
6. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.

source: politics - definition of politics by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

politics isn't just- 1a and 1b.
politics is also 6, 5, 4, 5, 3, 2. Unless ur a sociopath, ur a political animal, even with a humble IQ of 90. Now, even if the only political affairs we are involved in are those such as Bill and Monica's, it's a start. It's an education of sorts, surely?

..Tao... maybe I got the idea from the book..? can't recall reading it, but u never know... as u say, compulsory service, great idea. Don't know about the set top box though...

the bourgeois think TV is a poor medium for such weighty matters as politics... how would they vote?