Alternative Voting System

[FA_Q2]

It was defined a while back asshole.

You mean here?

A republic means the citizens elect representatives,

So merely electing representatives does not define a republic, which was your contention.

I think the core problem here is that the difference between a republic and a democracy has been blurred. The terms 'direct democracy' and 'representative democracy' somewhat make this issue nonsensical. A republic is, IMHO, a government where the people elect representatives and a democracy is one where the people control the government directly. The term representative democracy essentially has no functional difference from a republic. Why even have the extra term then?

What would you state is the functional difference from a democracy and a republic?

 

[Iceweasel]

It was defined a while back asshole.

You mean here?

A republic means the citizens elect representatives,

So merely electing representatives does not define a republic, which was your contention.

The founders defined it, I didn't contend anything. It isn't debatable. Sticking your head in the sand changes nothing.

 

[CowboyTed]

I live in Ireland and have business interests in US as well...

I am not telling anyone what to do , I just points out that one man one vote is a cause of a lot of US political problems. You have congress having an approval rating below 20% and yet 96.4 percent of incumbent lawmakers were re-elected in 2014.

That does not seem healthy

So what percentage of your votes in Ireland are dictated by the Brits? We know you aren't a real country because you can't even vote for yourselves to be one. You're a colony and colonies can afford to play stupid self gratifying games as long as mommy is there to take care of the big stuff.

You know Republic of Ireland is an independent country. We have a Prime Minister and Parliament. I think you might be confusing us with Northern Ireland or Scotland.

Hey Ireland can butt out of our business, don't make us come over there and stomp you and take over your island.

I just offered a new idea for people to discuss.. I think you are struggling with a new idea.

It is best you actually say what you don't like about the new idea over your present one...

You just a bad attempt at trying to insult me, is that because you haven't got the capacity to understand new ideas.

That's pretty sad...

When I want Irelands opinion I'll give it to them.

'When I want Irelands opinion I'll give it to them'

First of all it is 'When I want Irelands opinion I'll ask for it'

So after you after yourself look stupid I can point out that this thread is 13 pages long and most of it is non-partisan. It is generally actually asking what are the best ways forward.
If you actually read my first post, I said this was open for discussion and they way I suggested

 

[BluesLegend]

So what percentage of your votes in Ireland are dictated by the Brits? We know you aren't a real country because you can't even vote for yourselves to be one. You're a colony and colonies can afford to play stupid self gratifying games as long as mommy is there to take care of the big stuff.

You know Republic of Ireland is an independent country. We have a Prime Minister and Parliament. I think you might be confusing us with Northern Ireland or Scotland.

Hey Ireland can butt out of our business, don't make us come over there and stomp you and take over your island.

I just offered a new idea for people to discuss.. I think you are struggling with a new idea.

It is best you actually say what you don't like about the new idea over your present one...

You just a bad attempt at trying to insult me, is that because you haven't got the capacity to understand new ideas.

That's pretty sad...

When I want Irelands opinion I'll give it to them.

'When I want Irelands opinion I'll give it to them'

First of all it is 'When I want Irelands opinion I'll ask for it'

So after you after yourself look stupid I can point out that this thread is 13 pages long and most of it is non-partisan. It is generally actually asking what are the best ways forward.
If you actually read my first post, I said this was open for discussion and they way I suggested

Since you insist in butting your nose into America's business I'll butt my nose in to Ireland's business, you people need to train more dentists.

 

[dcraelin]

The fact you can't accept the dictionary definition you were given, nor provide a dictionary definition of your own is in line with the rightard need to redefine words to present an argument.

That you don't know that electing representatives does not define a republic, as in the case of the UK, merely confirms your ignorance.

It was defined a while back asshole. Pop your head out of your pussy for a change. You need me to prove it again?

Definition of REPUBLIC
Full Definition of republic

1. 1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

That's what we have, we don't need your approval.

dictionaries sometimes include the most inane of usages. Some now have a definition of twerking. The fact that a whole bunch of misinformed people keep repeating what you do is probably enough to get your definition in some dictionaries, along with, hopefully, the right one.

As I think I referenced earlier, the Supreme Court recently had a case that dealt with this and sided against your idea. The states are guaranteed republics in the US Constitution. Some took this as you might and said because that means representative government only, states cant have ballot initiatives. Thankfully, and for the good of all Americans, they ruled against that idea.

So legally, where it counts really, you are wrong.

No, you're full of shit. We have legislators, senators, presidents, mayors, council members, all of which prove we're a republic. We don't need your permission. Ballot initiatives are a bad idea, idiots vote on things they know nothing about. You like that, I don't.

no it is you that is full of shit, if you think idiots vote on ballot initiatives...then idiots vote in your vaunted "reps" ......

and boy hasn't the wisdom of our "representatives" been on full display over the years.

There is a reason that grafting politicians try to avoid public votes on white elephants they propose....because the wisdom of the people will usually shut down such graft.

The problem is not really idiocy (though I think there is far to much of that as well) but rather ignorance. The reality is that the vast majority of those that vote simply do not have the knowledge required to effectively weigh legislation. The purpose of having representatives is that the voters *should* have the ability and time to evaluate a small number of individuals on weather or not they would represent their interests/beliefs when they are weighing such legislation.

Of course, IMHO, people in this nation have become far to used to a government that keeps them safe, happy and wealthy that they have ignored the duty to properly chose those representatives and the entire system has run away. A symptom of being to successful.

trouble is when you vote for people rather than issues...............personality and party loyalty can interfere....compounding the ignorance.

Legislatures pass huge amounts of legislation......most of it unnecessary....and the Legislators dont read lots of it and do no better than a random man off the street might do.

 

[Iceweasel]

trouble is when you vote for people rather than issues...............personality and party loyalty can interfere....compounding the ignorance.

Legislatures pass huge amounts of legislation......most of it unnecessary....and the Legislators dont read lots of it and do no better than a random man off the street might do.

Can you support that?

 

[dcraelin]

trouble is when you vote for people rather than issues...............personality and party loyalty can interfere....compounding the ignorance.

Legislatures pass huge amounts of legislation......most of it unnecessary....and the Legislators dont read lots of it and do no better than a random man off the street might do.

Can you support that?

?, not sure what you mean

 

[CowboyTed]

You know Republic of Ireland is an independent country. We have a Prime Minister and Parliament. I think you might be confusing us with Northern Ireland or Scotland.

Hey Ireland can butt out of our business, don't make us come over there and stomp you and take over your island.

I just offered a new idea for people to discuss.. I think you are struggling with a new idea.

It is best you actually say what you don't like about the new idea over your present one...

You just a bad attempt at trying to insult me, is that because you haven't got the capacity to understand new ideas.

That's pretty sad...

When I want Irelands opinion I'll give it to them.

'When I want Irelands opinion I'll give it to them'

First of all it is 'When I want Irelands opinion I'll ask for it'

So after you after yourself look stupid I can point out that this thread is 13 pages long and most of it is non-partisan. It is generally actually asking what are the best ways forward.
If you actually read my first post, I said this was open for discussion and they way I suggested

Since you insist in butting your nose into America's business I'll butt my nose in to Ireland's business, you people need to train more dentists.

I didn't say you couldn't.
Here you are : www.politics.ie

But again you a more interested in trying to insult me than addressing that the tpoic

 

[FA_Q2]

It was defined a while back asshole. Pop your head out of your pussy for a change. You need me to prove it again?

Definition of REPUBLIC
Full Definition of republic

1. 1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

That's what we have, we don't need your approval.

dictionaries sometimes include the most inane of usages. Some now have a definition of twerking. The fact that a whole bunch of misinformed people keep repeating what you do is probably enough to get your definition in some dictionaries, along with, hopefully, the right one.

As I think I referenced earlier, the Supreme Court recently had a case that dealt with this and sided against your idea. The states are guaranteed republics in the US Constitution. Some took this as you might and said because that means representative government only, states cant have ballot initiatives. Thankfully, and for the good of all Americans, they ruled against that idea.

So legally, where it counts really, you are wrong.

No, you're full of shit. We have legislators, senators, presidents, mayors, council members, all of which prove we're a republic. We don't need your permission. Ballot initiatives are a bad idea, idiots vote on things they know nothing about. You like that, I don't.

no it is you that is full of shit, if you think idiots vote on ballot initiatives...then idiots vote in your vaunted "reps" ......

and boy hasn't the wisdom of our "representatives" been on full display over the years.

There is a reason that grafting politicians try to avoid public votes on white elephants they propose....because the wisdom of the people will usually shut down such graft.

The problem is not really idiocy (though I think there is far to much of that as well) but rather ignorance. The reality is that the vast majority of those that vote simply do not have the knowledge required to effectively weigh legislation. The purpose of having representatives is that the voters *should* have the ability and time to evaluate a small number of individuals on weather or not they would represent their interests/beliefs when they are weighing such legislation.

Of course, IMHO, people in this nation have become far to used to a government that keeps them safe, happy and wealthy that they have ignored the duty to properly chose those representatives and the entire system has run away. A symptom of being to successful.

trouble is when you vote for people rather than issues...............personality and party loyalty can interfere....compounding the ignorance.

Legislatures pass huge amounts of legislation......most of it unnecessary....and the Legislators dont read lots of it and do no better than a random man off the street might do.

You assume that voting for a person means that you are not including issues. That is false. One of the primary ways to look at a candidate and weather or not they will represent you is to see where they stand on the issues.

The average voter cannot make an informed decision on HR XYZ because they don't even understand what it means when they take the time to read it let alone face the fact the vast majority will never get that far. You certainly can make an informed decision based on where the candidate stand on the issue that bill might be about though.

 

[dcraelin]

dictionaries sometimes include the most inane of usages. Some now have a definition of twerking. The fact that a whole bunch of misinformed people keep repeating what you do is probably enough to get your definition in some dictionaries, along with, hopefully, the right one.

As I think I referenced earlier, the Supreme Court recently had a case that dealt with this and sided against your idea. The states are guaranteed republics in the US Constitution. Some took this as you might and said because that means representative government only, states cant have ballot initiatives. Thankfully, and for the good of all Americans, they ruled against that idea.

So legally, where it counts really, you are wrong.

No, you're full of shit. We have legislators, senators, presidents, mayors, council members, all of which prove we're a republic. We don't need your permission. Ballot initiatives are a bad idea, idiots vote on things they know nothing about. You like that, I don't.

no it is you that is full of shit, if you think idiots vote on ballot initiatives...then idiots vote in your vaunted "reps" ......

and boy hasn't the wisdom of our "representatives" been on full display over the years.

There is a reason that grafting politicians try to avoid public votes on white elephants they propose....because the wisdom of the people will usually shut down such graft.

The problem is not really idiocy (though I think there is far to much of that as well) but rather ignorance. The reality is that the vast majority of those that vote simply do not have the knowledge required to effectively weigh legislation. The purpose of having representatives is that the voters *should* have the ability and time to evaluate a small number of individuals on weather or not they would represent their interests/beliefs when they are weighing such legislation.

Of course, IMHO, people in this nation have become far to used to a government that keeps them safe, happy and wealthy that they have ignored the duty to properly chose those representatives and the entire system has run away. A symptom of being to successful.

trouble is when you vote for people rather than issues...............personality and party loyalty can interfere....compounding the ignorance.

Legislatures pass huge amounts of legislation......most of it unnecessary....and the Legislators dont read lots of it and do no better than a random man off the street might do.

You assume that voting for a person means that you are not including issues. That is false. One of the primary ways to look at a candidate and weather or not they will represent you is to see where they stand on the issues.

The average voter cannot make an informed decision on HR XYZ because they don't even understand what it means when they take the time to read it let alone face the fact the vast majority will never get that far. You certainly can make an informed decision based on where the candidate stand on the issue that bill might be about though.

that is a rather elitist point of view I think...............like I said, pull a random man off the street and they would do better than our average legislator....................who are basically hand picked by special interests.

A recent example. The EB-5 immigration program....this is a sleazy immoral program that allows wealthy foreigners to buy their way into the US.....Ive seen articles where this was said to lead to access by spies, crooks and even a child molester. ...But the wise, wise DC legislators just extended the program unchanged. The average man on the street would of had the decency to shut it down ........but real-estate interests got their way with those vaunted legislators of yours.

 

[Iceweasel]

like I said, pull a random man off the street and they would do better than our average legislator....................who are basically hand picked by special interests.

You're an idiot.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, you're full of shit. We have legislators, senators, presidents, mayors, council members, all of which prove we're a republic. We don't need your permission. Ballot initiatives are a bad idea, idiots vote on things they know nothing about. You like that, I don't.

no it is you that is full of shit, if you think idiots vote on ballot initiatives...then idiots vote in your vaunted "reps" ......

and boy hasn't the wisdom of our "representatives" been on full display over the years.

There is a reason that grafting politicians try to avoid public votes on white elephants they propose....because the wisdom of the people will usually shut down such graft.

The problem is not really idiocy (though I think there is far to much of that as well) but rather ignorance. The reality is that the vast majority of those that vote simply do not have the knowledge required to effectively weigh legislation. The purpose of having representatives is that the voters *should* have the ability and time to evaluate a small number of individuals on weather or not they would represent their interests/beliefs when they are weighing such legislation.

Of course, IMHO, people in this nation have become far to used to a government that keeps them safe, happy and wealthy that they have ignored the duty to properly chose those representatives and the entire system has run away. A symptom of being to successful.

trouble is when you vote for people rather than issues...............personality and party loyalty can interfere....compounding the ignorance.

Legislatures pass huge amounts of legislation......most of it unnecessary....and the Legislators dont read lots of it and do no better than a random man off the street might do.

You assume that voting for a person means that you are not including issues. That is false. One of the primary ways to look at a candidate and weather or not they will represent you is to see where they stand on the issues.

The average voter cannot make an informed decision on HR XYZ because they don't even understand what it means when they take the time to read it let alone face the fact the vast majority will never get that far. You certainly can make an informed decision based on where the candidate stand on the issue that bill might be about though.

that is a rather elitist point of view I think...............like I said, pull a random man off the street and they would do better than our average legislator....................who are basically hand picked by special interests.

A recent example. The EB-5 immigration program....this is a sleazy immoral program that allows wealthy foreigners to buy their way into the US.....Ive seen articles where this was said to lead to access by spies, crooks and even a child molester. ...But the wise, wise DC legislators just extended the program unchanged. The average man on the street would of had the decency to shut it down ........but real-estate interests got their way with those vaunted legislators of yours.

It is elitist to think that a professional should be in a position to make decisions? Do you feel the same way when you go to the doctor? Do you think that it is elitist that we don't pull a 'man off the street' to perform brain surgery?

The average legislator today is irrelevant to my point anyway - the average legislator today is a product of an electorate that is totally and willfully ignorant. Our political system is broken and it is not a function of the system we are in as much as it is a function of how badly the electorate has ignored it's responsibility.

Here is the 'man on the street:'



But do not worry, here is the future:

 

[dcraelin]

like I said, pull a random man off the street and they would do better than our average legislator....................who are basically hand picked by special interests.

You're an idiot.

ha, you sound like one of our vaunted legislators.....which is worse than being an idiot

 

[dcraelin]

no it is you that is full of shit, if you think idiots vote on ballot initiatives...then idiots vote in your vaunted "reps" ......

and boy hasn't the wisdom of our "representatives" been on full display over the years.

There is a reason that grafting politicians try to avoid public votes on white elephants they propose....because the wisdom of the people will usually shut down such graft.

The problem is not really idiocy (though I think there is far to much of that as well) but rather ignorance. The reality is that the vast majority of those that vote simply do not have the knowledge required to effectively weigh legislation. The purpose of having representatives is that the voters *should* have the ability and time to evaluate a small number of individuals on weather or not they would represent their interests/beliefs when they are weighing such legislation.

Of course, IMHO, people in this nation have become far to used to a government that keeps them safe, happy and wealthy that they have ignored the duty to properly chose those representatives and the entire system has run away. A symptom of being to successful.

trouble is when you vote for people rather than issues...............personality and party loyalty can interfere....compounding the ignorance.

Legislatures pass huge amounts of legislation......most of it unnecessary....and the Legislators dont read lots of it and do no better than a random man off the street might do.

You assume that voting for a person means that you are not including issues. That is false. One of the primary ways to look at a candidate and weather or not they will represent you is to see where they stand on the issues.

The average voter cannot make an informed decision on HR XYZ because they don't even understand what it means when they take the time to read it let alone face the fact the vast majority will never get that far. You certainly can make an informed decision based on where the candidate stand on the issue that bill might be about though.

that is a rather elitist point of view I think...............like I said, pull a random man off the street and they would do better than our average legislator....................who are basically hand picked by special interests.

A recent example. The EB-5 immigration program....this is a sleazy immoral program that allows wealthy foreigners to buy their way into the US.....Ive seen articles where this was said to lead to access by spies, crooks and even a child molester. ...But the wise, wise DC legislators just extended the program unchanged. The average man on the street would of had the decency to shut it down ........but real-estate interests got their way with those vaunted legislators of yours.

It is elitist to think that a professional should be in a position to make decisions? Do you feel the same way when you go to the doctor? Do you think that it is elitist that we don't pull a 'man off the street' to perform brain surgery?

The average legislator today is irrelevant to my point anyway - the average legislator today is a product of an electorate that is totally and willfully ignorant. Our political system is broken and it is not a function of the system we are in as much as it is a function of how badly the electorate has ignored it's responsibility.

Here is the 'man on the street:'



But do not worry, here is the future:

legislation isnt brain surgery,............there is a process of deliberation that goes on when considering government bills/proposed laws, these citizens on the street would educate themselves and do a better job than our bought and purchased "representatives.

just watched the first vid, the guy is mis-representing the petition...he is lying basically...and he seems to equate the "founders" with the bill of rights,,,,,not realizing that the bill of rights werent in the Constitution originally.......

I see you have not addressed the example I gave.

 

[Iceweasel]

like I said, pull a random man off the street and they would do better than our average legislator....................who are basically hand picked by special interests.

You're an idiot.

ha, you sound like one of our vaunted legislators.....which is worse than being an idiot

Sounds like you should move.

 

[dcraelin]

like I said, pull a random man off the street and they would do better than our average legislator....................who are basically hand picked by special interests.

You're an idiot.

ha, you sound like one of our vaunted legislators.....which is worse than being an idiot

Sounds like you should move.

typical idiotic response

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem is not really idiocy (though I think there is far to much of that as well) but rather ignorance. The reality is that the vast majority of those that vote simply do not have the knowledge required to effectively weigh legislation. The purpose of having representatives is that the voters *should* have the ability and time to evaluate a small number of individuals on weather or not they would represent their interests/beliefs when they are weighing such legislation.

Of course, IMHO, people in this nation have become far to used to a government that keeps them safe, happy and wealthy that they have ignored the duty to properly chose those representatives and the entire system has run away. A symptom of being to successful.

trouble is when you vote for people rather than issues...............personality and party loyalty can interfere....compounding the ignorance.

Legislatures pass huge amounts of legislation......most of it unnecessary....and the Legislators dont read lots of it and do no better than a random man off the street might do.

You assume that voting for a person means that you are not including issues. That is false. One of the primary ways to look at a candidate and weather or not they will represent you is to see where they stand on the issues.

The average voter cannot make an informed decision on HR XYZ because they don't even understand what it means when they take the time to read it let alone face the fact the vast majority will never get that far. You certainly can make an informed decision based on where the candidate stand on the issue that bill might be about though.

that is a rather elitist point of view I think...............like I said, pull a random man off the street and they would do better than our average legislator....................who are basically hand picked by special interests.

A recent example. The EB-5 immigration program....this is a sleazy immoral program that allows wealthy foreigners to buy their way into the US.....Ive seen articles where this was said to lead to access by spies, crooks and even a child molester. ...But the wise, wise DC legislators just extended the program unchanged. The average man on the street would of had the decency to shut it down ........but real-estate interests got their way with those vaunted legislators of yours.

It is elitist to think that a professional should be in a position to make decisions? Do you feel the same way when you go to the doctor? Do you think that it is elitist that we don't pull a 'man off the street' to perform brain surgery?

The average legislator today is irrelevant to my point anyway - the average legislator today is a product of an electorate that is totally and willfully ignorant. Our political system is broken and it is not a function of the system we are in as much as it is a function of how badly the electorate has ignored it's responsibility.

Here is the 'man on the street:'



But do not worry, here is the future:

legislation isnt brain surgery,............there is a process of deliberation that goes on when considering government bills/proposed laws, these citizens on the street would educate themselves and do a better job than our bought and purchased "representatives.

just watched the first vid, the guy is mis-representing the petition...he is lying basically...and he seems to equate the "founders" with the bill of rights,,,,,not realizing that the bill of rights werent in the Constitution originally.......

I see you have not addressed the example I gave.

He didn't misrepresent anything. He directly states that he is petitioning to 'blow up' the first amendment. You are seeing what you want to see.

And no, I did not deal with your 'example' because to do so would involve a lot of research into the program itself and that is utterly wasted on an example that is not even the point of the discussion.

 

[dcraelin]

trouble is when you vote for people rather than issues...............personality and party loyalty can interfere....compounding the ignorance.

Legislatures pass huge amounts of legislation......most of it unnecessary....and the Legislators dont read lots of it and do no better than a random man off the street might do.

You assume that voting for a person means that you are not including issues. That is false. One of the primary ways to look at a candidate and weather or not they will represent you is to see where they stand on the issues.

The average voter cannot make an informed decision on HR XYZ because they don't even understand what it means when they take the time to read it let alone face the fact the vast majority will never get that far. You certainly can make an informed decision based on where the candidate stand on the issue that bill might be about though.

that is a rather elitist point of view I think...............like I said, pull a random man off the street and they would do better than our average legislator....................who are basically hand picked by special interests.

A recent example. The EB-5 immigration program....this is a sleazy immoral program that allows wealthy foreigners to buy their way into the US.....Ive seen articles where this was said to lead to access by spies, crooks and even a child molester. ...But the wise, wise DC legislators just extended the program unchanged. The average man on the street would of had the decency to shut it down ........but real-estate interests got their way with those vaunted legislators of yours.

It is elitist to think that a professional should be in a position to make decisions? Do you feel the same way when you go to the doctor? Do you think that it is elitist that we don't pull a 'man off the street' to perform brain surgery?

The average legislator today is irrelevant to my point anyway - the average legislator today is a product of an electorate that is totally and willfully ignorant. Our political system is broken and it is not a function of the system we are in as much as it is a function of how badly the electorate has ignored it's responsibility.

Here is the 'man on the street:'



But do not worry, here is the future:

legislation isnt brain surgery,............there is a process of deliberation that goes on when considering government bills/proposed laws, these citizens on the street would educate themselves and do a better job than our bought and purchased "representatives.

just watched the first vid, the guy is mis-representing the petition...he is lying basically...and he seems to equate the "founders" with the bill of rights,,,,,not realizing that the bill of rights werent in the Constitution originally.......

I see you have not addressed the example I gave.

He didn't misrepresent anything. He directly states that he is petitioning to 'blow up' the first amendment. You are seeing what you want to see.

And no, I did not deal with your 'example' because to do so would involve a lot of research into the program itself and that is utterly wasted on an example that is not even the point of the discussion.

we are not seeing the full runs of his approaches to these students, most of what we see is the last part where the students are saying basically, yeah yeah, I'll sign just shut the fuck up , the guy is an asshole really and whoever sponsored his filming is scum.