Democracy is stupid

[nobody 2,461]

Because voters are stupid.

All this talk about ending democracy.  

We don't elect the best people for the job.  We elect people that can win elections.  We are essentially electing an organization (ie, a party) who's purpose is to run government.  To that end, the only candidates we will ever get are people who can win elections.  I.e., liars who tell people what they want to hear.  

Because here's the truth no one wants to hear.  If a presidential candidate told people the truth - your individual problems are not my concern because my job is to run a nation - they will never get elected.  So the only people we will ever elect are liars and people who have developed powerful networks of support in exchange for favors.

I propose that we do away with the whole "get out and vote" campaigns which are specifically designed to get easily manipulated people to cast low information votes.  Instead what we do is you need to pass a test to vote.  We can even automate so you can only vote on things for which you have knowledge.

You can't name the three branches of government?  Sorry, better luck next year.

You don't know how Israel came into existence?  Sorry, you can't vote on matters related to Israel.

You don't understand interest or taxes or monetary policy?  Sorry, you can't vote on economic matters.

 

[edjr 6,300]

5 minutes ago, nobody said:

Because voters are stupid.

All this talk about ending democracy.  

We don't elect the best people for the job.  We elect people that can win elections.  We are essentially electing an organization (ie, a party) who's purpose is to run government.  To that end, the only candidates we will ever get are people who can win elections.  I.e., liars who tell people what they want to hear.  

Because here's the truth no one wants to hear.  If a presidential candidate told people the truth - your individual problems are not my concern because my job is to run a nation - they will never get elected.  So the only people we will ever elect are liars and people who have developed powerful networks of support in exchange for favors.

I propose that we do away with the whole "get out and vote" campaigns which are specifically designed to get easily manipulated people to cast low information votes.  Instead what we do is you need to pass a test to vote.  We can even automate so you can only vote on things for which you have knowledge.

You can't name the three branches of government?  Sorry, better luck next year.

You don't know how Israel came into existence?  Sorry, you can't vote on matters related to Israel.

You don't understand interest or taxes or monetary policy?  Sorry, you can't vote on economic matters.

 

 

[MLCKAA 512]

1 hour ago, nobody said:

Because voters are stupid.

All this talk about ending democracy.  

We don't elect the best people for the job.  We elect people that can win elections.  We are essentially electing an organization (ie, a party) who's purpose is to run government.  To that end, the only candidates we will ever get are people who can win elections.  I.e., liars who tell people what they want to hear.  

Because here's the truth no one wants to hear.  If a presidential candidate told people the truth - your individual problems are not my concern because my job is to run a nation - they will never get elected.  So the only people we will ever elect are liars and people who have developed powerful networks of support in exchange for favors.

I propose that we do away with the whole "get out and vote" campaigns which are specifically designed to get easily manipulated people to cast low information votes.  Instead what we do is you need to pass a test to vote.  We can even automate so you can only vote on things for which you have knowledge.

You can't name the three branches of government?  Sorry, better luck next year.

You don't know how Israel came into existence?  Sorry, you can't vote on matters related to Israel.

You don't understand interest or taxes or monetary policy?  Sorry, you can't vote on economic matters.

 

You deserve a pat on the back.

[weepaws 3,006]

1 hour ago, nobody said:

Because voters are stupid.

All this talk about ending democracy.  

We don't elect the best people for the job.  We elect people that can win elections.  We are essentially electing an organization (ie, a party) who's purpose is to run government.  To that end, the only candidates we will ever get are people who can win elections.  I.e., liars who tell people what they want to hear.  

Because here's the truth no one wants to hear.  If a presidential candidate told people the truth - your individual problems are not my concern because my job is to run a nation - they will never get elected.  So the only people we will ever elect are liars and people who have developed powerful networks of support in exchange for favors.

I propose that we do away with the whole "get out and vote" campaigns which are specifically designed to get easily manipulated people to cast low information votes.  Instead what we do is you need to pass a test to vote.  We can even automate so you can only vote on things for which you have knowledge.

You can't name the three branches of government?  Sorry, better luck next year.

You don't know how Israel came into existence?  Sorry, you can't vote on matters related to Israel.

You don't understand interest or taxes or monetary policy?  Sorry, you can't vote on economic matters.

 

You will vote for? I agree with you, but I’m not supporting either party, how about you? 

[Voltaire 4,923]

It's the least bad form of government humanity has ever come up with.

Allowing people on the public dole or with student loan forgivness to vote though is stupid. The merits of such programs, good or bad, can be argued but "Here's a buttload of taxpayer money, vote for me" is a recipe for financial ruin and should not be a campaign strategy (which is a major, long-standing, lifelong problem I have always had with the Democratic Party).

[Lou Gee 2]

1 hour ago, edjr said:

 

They'd need to correctly answer the question: "McNair or Pennington."

[jerryskids 6,165]

2 hours ago, nobody said:

Because voters are stupid.

All this talk about ending democracy.  

We don't elect the best people for the job.  We elect people that can win elections.  We are essentially electing an organization (ie, a party) who's purpose is to run government.  To that end, the only candidates we will ever get are people who can win elections.  I.e., liars who tell people what they want to hear.  

Because here's the truth no one wants to hear.  If a presidential candidate told people the truth - your individual problems are not my concern because my job is to run a nation - they will never get elected.  So the only people we will ever elect are liars and people who have developed powerful networks of support in exchange for favors.

I propose that we do away with the whole "get out and vote" campaigns which are specifically designed to get easily manipulated people to cast low information votes.  Instead what we do is you need to pass a test to vote.  We can even automate so you can only vote on things for which you have knowledge.

You can't name the three branches of government?  Sorry, better luck next year.

You don't know how Israel came into existence?  Sorry, you can't vote on matters related to Israel.

You don't understand interest or taxes or monetary policy?  Sorry, you can't vote on economic matters.

 

I've long advocated the basic premise of your post.  I cringe whenever I hear "get out the vote."  No, please, don't do that.  And college kids have no life experience upon which to intelligently vote; we should move the age back to 21.

For those who oppose this, it was 21 until 1971 and the 26th amendment which lowered it to 18.  It was lowered because we were drafting 18 year old kids into the military out of necessity (since WW2).  I heard an interesting pod on this:  the age of 21 used to be required for military service.  This age dates back, as many things do, to the Roman Empire.  In Rome, you could do other adult things (get married, farm land) at 14 IIRC, but you had to be 21 to be in the military.  The reason was simple:  you needed a full grown man body to carry all of that armor and weaponry.

The funny (sad) thing is, 50+ years ago, 18 yr olds were much more mature than today, where they are collectively children who will vote based on TikTok videos and Taylor Swift endorsements.

[edjr 6,300]

50 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I've long advocated the basic premise of your post.  I cringe whenever I hear "get out the vote."  No, please, don't do that.  And college kids have no life experience upon which to intelligently vote; we should move the age back to 21.

For those who oppose this, it was 21 until 1971 and the 26th amendment which lowered it to 18.  It was lowered because we were drafting 18 year old kids into the military out of necessity (since WW2).  I heard an interesting pod on this:  the age of 21 used to be required for military service.  This age dates back, as many things do, to the Roman Empire.  In Rome, you could do other adult things (get married, farm land) at 14 IIRC, but you had to be 21 to be in the military.  The reason was simple:  you needed a full grown man body to carry all of that armor and weaponry.

The funny (sad) thing is, 50+ years ago, 18 yr olds were much more mature than today, where they are collectively children who will vote based on TikTok videos and Taylor Swift endorsements.

Can vote at 18 but can’t rent a car till 25.  idiocy 

[seafoam1 2,525]

Stupid. 

[weepaws 3,006]

32 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Stupid. 

Lol.  

[Frozenbeernuts 1,883]

My minimum proposal is naming of bills is outlawed. All bills are Alpha numerical so the sponsor can't blatantly lie.

Vote for the Save the Children Act!

What's in it?

It's mandatory to sacrifice every second born to a pagan God of your senators choosing.

[seafoam1 2,525]

1 minute ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

My minimum proposal is naming of bills is outlawed. All bills are Alpha numerical so the sponsor can't blatantly lie.

Vote for the Save the Children Act!

What's in it?

It's mandatory to sacrifice every second born to a pagan God of your senators choosing.

I'm with you.