WhewNotSaved wrote:

Democracy can only work among people of like mind and
like traditions.

democracy cannot be made to work. it is an abject failure
everywhere.
the reason is that stupid people outnumber intelligent people,
therefore they have more voting power.
this runs contrary to the principle of survival of the fittest.
we can try tweaking democracy into a meritocracy, where people can
amass more than 1 vote, but i'm not entirely sure that will work.
in a meritocracy, each person can have up to 5 votes.
you get 1 vote for each of these things (for example):
1. you're 18 or older
2. you graduated from high school
3. you have a Bachelors degree or more (3+ years)
4. you own your own dwelling (and pay rates on it)
5. you are a member of a political party

1. people under 18 can't vote anyway.

They can if we allow them to. I'm allocating votes here. Try to keep
up.
Everyone who is 18 or older gets at least one vote. People would be
most upset if they didn't have at least one vote, even if they never
bother to cast it.

2 and 3 I understand, but what is the purpose of 4 and 5?
How do owning a house and being a member of a party give you more
merit?

People who own property have a vested interest in the country. They
have more at stake than those who do not own property. Therefore they
get a vote for that.

Property isn't really owned, I don't care what laws say.
How can anyone OWN a piece of a planet or a universe?
It's all pretend.

how bizarre!

I think more important is the emphasis on the state and condition of the
people.
Owning property is just a money thing and only applies to some of the
people.
It makes them no better or worse than those who do not own property.
Actually, one of the scariest things is white trash with money,
money=power
white trash=ignorance

i think it is important to reward people who apply themselves, get an
education, get a job, work diligently and save and sacrifice so that
they can invest in the purchase of a roof over their heads.

those are the kinds of people that build a nation and make it prosper,
and they ought to have a greater say in the political process.

People who have membership of a political party demonstrate that they
actually care enough about politics to get involved. They get an
additional vote for that.

Sometime there's just not a reasonable choice.

then people can form new parties which set out to do all the good
things they believe need doing.

You can vote without identifying with a political party.

sure, and you don't need to join a party if you don't want to. but if
you do, you get an additional vote to reward you for making an effort.

What about people who decide that owning a house isn't worth the
hassle or find themselves in a bad real estate market,

Or who are poor? Being poor doesn't mean you aren't well educated,
intelligent or uninformed.

the poor are the unsuccessful. i'd rather a country's future be
determined (to a greater degree) by those who are successful.

They don't get an additional vote. Acquiring property requires
commitment. It's not an easy thing to achieve for many people.

What has that got to do with it? Most middle class property owners
thought
they were making a committment... financial committment and lost their
homes.
Committment about material things is not an ethical value.
Who made those rules?

building a nation is about creating prosperity - material prosperity.

or people who feel that there aren't any political parties worth
joining?

Then they probably wouldn't even bother to get off their fat arses to
vote in the first place, so why waste another vote on them?

Really? I always vote and I've never registered and selected a party.

you may then feel motivated to join so that you can acquire that extra
vote.

it's easier for you to get an extra vote by joining a party than buying
a house.

it's not meant to be that the effort required to acquire each vote be
equal in measure. some votes are easier to get than others.

if all of them were hard to get, the system would just disenfranchise
and frustrate people. this way, you could well have the same number of
votes or more than a property owner has, because they haven't bothered
to join a political party, nor do they have tertiary education.

Anyway, those are just my ideas. I don't think it gives wealthy people
too much political power. I think most people would be able to acquire
3 votes without too much difficulty - they just have to show that they
are interested enough to get them.

Just because people don't have a school education or own property doesn't
mean they aren't interested and informed. AAMOF they are probably more
interested.

I think it's good to encourage people to get an education and acquire
property. People can prove their interest by meeting the requirements
to gain the votes.

Gaining the last two votes is harder - you have to complete tertiary
education, work consistently and save in order to be able to purchase
your own place to stay. I think pursuing those goals are worthwhile
endeavours and to be encouraged.

That's fine for you. You can't speak for anyone else.

Objectively speaking, those are worthwhile goals and every country
wants such industrious citizens.

There's no good, bad, right or wrong about wanting a formal education or
owning property.

Both are objectively good and BETTER than not having an education and
not owning property.

Bush had a formal education, owns property and he's a blitherig idiot
with
an IQ of 98.

it's not about any particular personalities.

I left off doing military service or community service. But that is
also a possibility. I left it off, because usually that service is done
only for two years. Perhaps you can get the additional vote for a
limited period only? I don't know if it makes sense to give a person an
additional vote (for doing service) for the rest of their lives.

I did community service, only because it was a choice between that and
serving the rest of my sentence LOL

that kind of community service would not qualify.

WhewNotSaved wrote:

Democracy can only work among people of like mind and
like traditions.

democracy cannot be made to work. it is an abject failure
everywhere.
the reason is that stupid people outnumber intelligent people,
therefore they have more voting power.
this runs contrary to the principle of survival of the fittest.
we can try tweaking democracy into a meritocracy, where people can
amass more than 1 vote, but i'm not entirely sure that will work.
in a meritocracy, each person can have up to 5 votes.
you get 1 vote for each of these things (for example):
1. you're 18 or older
2. you graduated from high school
3. you have a Bachelors degree or more (3+ years)
4. you own your own dwelling (and pay rates on it)
5. you are a member of a political party

1. people under 18 can't vote anyway.

They can if we allow them to. I'm allocating votes here. Try to keep
up.
Everyone who is 18 or older gets at least one vote. People would be
most upset if they didn't have at least one vote, even if they never
bother to cast it.

2 and 3 I understand, but what is the purpose of 4 and 5?
How do owning a house and being a member of a party give you more
merit?

People who own property have a vested interest in the country. They
have more at stake than those who do not own property. Therefore they
get a vote for that.

Property isn't really owned, I don't care what laws say.
How can anyone OWN a piece of a planet or a universe?
It's all pretend.

how bizarre!

I think more important is the emphasis on the state and condition of the
people.
Owning property is just a money thing and only applies to some of the
people.
It makes them no better or worse than those who do not own property.
Actually, one of the scariest things is white trash with money,
money=power
white trash=ignorance

i think it is important to reward people who apply themselves, get an
education, get a job, work diligently and save and sacrifice so that
they can invest in the purchase of a roof over their heads.

those are the kinds of people that build a nation and make it prosper,
and they ought to have a greater say in the political process.

People who have membership of a political party demonstrate that they
actually care enough about politics to get involved. They get an
additional vote for that.

Sometime there's just not a reasonable choice.

then people can form new parties which set out to do all the good
things they believe need doing.

You can vote without identifying with a political party.

sure, and you don't need to join a party if you don't want to. but if
you do, you get an additional vote to reward you for making an effort.

What about people who decide that owning a house isn't worth the
hassle or find themselves in a bad real estate market,

Or who are poor? Being poor doesn't mean you aren't well educated,
intelligent or uninformed.

the poor are the unsuccessful. i'd rather a country's future be
determined (to a greater degree) by those who are successful.

They don't get an additional vote. Acquiring property requires
commitment. It's not an easy thing to achieve for many people.

What has that got to do with it? Most middle class property owners
thought
they were making a committment... financial committment and lost their
homes.
Committment about material things is not an ethical value.
Who made those rules?

building a nation is about creating prosperity - material prosperity.

or people who feel that there aren't any political parties worth
joining?

Then they probably wouldn't even bother to get off their fat arses to
vote in the first place, so why waste another vote on them?

Really? I always vote and I've never registered and selected a party.

you may then feel motivated to join so that you can acquire that extra
vote.

it's easier for you to get an extra vote by joining a party than buying
a house.

it's not meant to be that the effort required to acquire each vote be
equal in measure. some votes are easier to get than others.

if all of them were hard to get, the system would just disenfranchise
and frustrate people. this way, you could well have the same number of
votes or more than a property owner has, because they haven't bothered
to join a political party, nor do they have tertiary education.

Anyway, those are just my ideas. I don't think it gives wealthy people
too much political power. I think most people would be able to acquire
3 votes without too much difficulty - they just have to show that they
are interested enough to get them.

Just because people don't have a school education or own property doesn't
mean they aren't interested and informed. AAMOF they are probably more
interested.

I think it's good to encourage people to get an education and acquire
property. People can prove their interest by meeting the requirements
to gain the votes.

Gaining the last two votes is harder - you have to complete tertiary
education, work consistently and save in order to be able to purchase
your own place to stay. I think pursuing those goals are worthwhile
endeavours and to be encouraged.

That's fine for you. You can't speak for anyone else.

Objectively speaking, those are worthwhile goals and every country
wants such industrious citizens.

There's no good, bad, right or wrong about wanting a formal education or
owning property.

Both are objectively good and BETTER than not having an education and
not owning property.

Bush had a formal education, owns property and he's a blitherig idiot
with
an IQ of 98.

it's not about any particular personalities.

I left off doing military service or community service. But that is
also a possibility. I left it off, because usually that service is done
only for two years. Perhaps you can get the additional vote for a
limited period only? I don't know if it makes sense to give a person an
additional vote (for doing service) for the rest of their lives.

I did community service, only because it was a choice between that and
serving the rest of my sentence LOL

that kind of community service would not qualify.

Al Klein wrote:

Then why an additional vote for having signed an application for
membership in a political party? (It doesn't take work to belong to a
party.)

You're wrong, Mr. Kline... if all the junk mail requesting more money
and the fliers were accumulated for a whole year it would take at least
one more full trash can dragged out to the curb. And that's just one
committee. Pity the poor soul who joins committees at national, state
and local levels!

Al Klein wrote:

People who own property have a vested interest in the country. They
have more at stake than those who do not own property.

Residency counts for a lot more than property ownership.

No, that is insufficient. Property is a tie that binds.

Even the US State Department is smart enough to recognise that.

People who have membership of a political party demonstrate that they
actually care enough about politics to get involved. They get an
additional vote for that.

Being a member of a political party is a state of being - it doesn't
take any effort. You're giving one vote for someone taking 5 minutes
out of his life to sign a form?

It takes effort to bother to go in and sign up, and PAY your annual
membership dues.

Anyway, those are just my ideas. I don't think it gives wealthy people
too much political power.

The very wealthy always have more political clout than the poor. When
is the last time some vagrant was invited to dine with the leader of a
large country?

This method gives more voting power to people who aren't particularly
wealthy

mitigating the influence of those with billions to throw
around.

I think most people would be able to acquire
3 votes without too much difficulty - they just have to show that they
are interested enough to get them.

Candidates aren't nominated by the electorate.

non-sequiter.

and this is NOT about US politics ALONE.

Gaining the last two votes is harder - you have to complete tertiary
education, work consistently and save in order to be able to purchase
your own place to stay.

Or have parents who gave you a house and pay for its upkeep. (A
university degree can also be purchased.)

it doesn't matter if some get a house that way.

degrees which are purchased will not be recognised. real institutions
do not sell them.

I left off doing military service or community service. But that is
also a possibility. I left it off, because usually that service is done
only for two years. Perhaps you can get the additional vote for a
limited period only?

Then why an additional vote for having signed an application for
membership in a political party? (It doesn't take work to belong to a
party.)

so who said work was required? i allocate a vote for turning 18.

I don't know if it makes sense to give a person an
additional vote (for doing service) for the rest of their lives.

Your entire proposal makes no sense.

sure, it does.