Self governance is no longer possible.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

Art&Science

Senior member
Nov 28, 2014
339
4
46
+ As is evidence by our choices of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, the American public who voted for these people in the primaries and additionally has even allowed them to get where they are now, should no longer be allowed in the decision making regarding the leadership of the nation.

+ The majority of the population is no longer capable of self governance due to ignorance, low intelligence and laziness.

+ A benevolent dictatorial government similar to what China has seems like the logical choice.

+ Self governance is a privilege which the populace has abused and should now lose based on the actions and track history of said populace. The population at large is not capable of decision making which has the greater good of the country in mind.

+ Ideally, a council of people would be "found" or "chosen" and installed into power and would have total decision making authority. A complex artificial intelligence or group of genetically engineered humans would be the best choice.

+ Humanity will not last another 100 years with the current system due to the existence of nuclear weapons, and the population at large in the United States can no longer be trusted to safeguard our nuclear arsenal.
 
Sonikku

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,906
4,928
136
Agreed. We should give the president emergency powers so that he might grant us a safe and secure society. :hmm:
 
A

Art&Science

Senior member
Nov 28, 2014
339
4
46
Sonikku said:
Agreed. We should give the president emergency powers so that he might grant us a safe and secure society. :hmm:
Click to expand...

Oh no, I didn't say that. The Presidency is included in our self governance and should be done away with.
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,765
6,770
126
Art&Science said:
+ As is evidence by our choices of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, the American public who voted for these people in the primaries and additionally has even allowed them to get where they are now, should no longer be allowed in the decision making regarding the leadership of the nation.

+ The majority of the population is no longer capable of self governance due to ignorance, low intelligence and laziness.

+ A benevolent dictatorial government similar to what China has seems like the logical choice.

+ Self governance is a privilege which the populace has abused and should now lose based on the actions and track history of said populace. The population at large is not capable of decision making which has the greater good of the country in mind.

+ Ideally, a council of people would be "found" or "chosen" and installed into power and would have total decision making authority. A complex artificial intelligence or group of genetically engineered humans would be the best choice.

+ Humanity will not last another 100 years with the current system due to the existence of nuclear weapons, and the population at large in the United States can no longer be trusted to safeguard our nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...

It strikes me as profoundly interesting that you don't recognize the genetically superior super intelligence that should rule us is Trump.

And besides, why do you care about what happens to the stupid population Americans have become. Won't the get the government they deserve? Who are you to think we deserve better? I mean, really, be careful what you wish for. That genetically superior intellect that can care for his people might just be somebody like me who would grab you by your feet and bang you against a wall until you started to make sense instead of posting drivel like this.
 
yllus

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
cbrunny said:
Parliament!
Click to expand...

I've been saying to people for a while now that the U.S. needs to switch to a Westminster system of parliament for a few years now. Lately people have stopped scoffing at the thought...
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,066
4,712
126
We can have democratic choices AND intelligent choices. But, you need an intelligent leader(s) in order to do so.

For example, you don't give your small children the choice between (a) standard water and (b) a bottle of arsenic with a funny symbol on it. The children may democratically choose option (b) because they don't truly understand the full ramifications. The flaw isn't democracy. The flaw here is that option (b) should never be an option. An intelligent parent would never give that as a choice.

For example, you don't give your country the choice between (a) the standard system of staying in the EU and (b) a Brexit with a funny name on it. The country may democratically choose option (b) because they don't truly understand the full ramifications. The flaw isn't democracy. The flaw here is that option (b) should never be an option. An intelligent prime minister would never give that as a choice.



What America needs is a system that allows a wide selection of viable parties. Go back to the old system before primaries where each party puts forth what they think is their best candidate. Then let democracy run. If we are only given good choices, then we can make good decisions. The flaw here is that we were even given Trump and Clinton as options. That likely wouldn't have happened without letting democracy run rampant and unchecked.

Of course, we have to watch out for corrupt systems, which is why we need to revamp our elections to make 3rd parties viable. If a party chooses to be corrupt and give us arsenic candidates, then we can make them the next Whig party. That isn't possible with just two parties without going to China's single party system.
 
Last edited:
pcgeek11

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,378
4,998
136
Art&Science said:
+ As is evidence by our choices of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, the American public who voted for these people in the primaries and additionally has even allowed them to get where they are now, should no longer be allowed in the decision making regarding the leadership of the nation.

+ The majority of the population is no longer capable of self governance due to ignorance, low intelligence and laziness.

+ A benevolent dictatorial government similar to what China has seems like the logical choice.

+ Self governance is a privilege which the populace has abused and should now lose based on the actions and track history of said populace. The population at large is not capable of decision making which has the greater good of the country in mind.

+ Ideally, a council of people would be "found" or "chosen" and installed into power and would have total decision making authority. A complex artificial intelligence or group of genetically engineered humans would be the best choice.

+ Humanity will not last another 100 years with the current system due to the existence of nuclear weapons, and the population at large in the United States can no longer be trusted to safeguard our nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...

And we should just accept your opinions as facts?

Right.

 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,559
17,086
136
dullard said:
We can have democratic choices AND intelligent choices. But, you need an intelligent leader(s) in order to do so.

For example, you don't give your small children the choice between (a) standard water and (b) a bottle of arsenic with a funny symbol on it. The children may democratically choose option (b) because they don't truly understand the full ramifications. The flaw isn't democracy. The flaw here is that option (b) should never be an option. An intelligent parent would never give that as a choice.

For example, you don't give your country the choice between (a) the standard system of staying in the EU and (b) a Brexit with a funny name on it. The country may democratically choose option (b) because they don't truly understand the full ramifications. The flaw isn't democracy. The flaw here is that option (b) should never be an option. An intelligent prime minister would never give that as a choice.



What America needs is a system that allows a wide selection of viable parties. Go back to the old system before primaries where each party puts forth what they think is their best candidate. Then let democracy run. If we are only given good choices, then we can make good decisions. The flaw here is that we were even given Trump and Clinton as options. That likely wouldn't have happened without letting democracy run rampant and unchecked.

Of course, we have to watch out for corrupt systems, which is why we need to revamp our elections to make 3rd parties viable. If a party chooses to be corrupt and give us arsenic candidates, then we can make them the next Whig party. That isn't possible with just two parties without going to China's single party system.
Click to expand...

We have a "two party" system because that's what people have voted for. The fact that a third party candidate hasn't become president isn't a sign of a failed or corrupt democracy, it's a sign that democracy is working as it was intended.

If this this election season has taught us anything its that our democracy is working.
 
Last edited:
pcgeek11

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,378
4,998
136
yllus said:
I've been saying to people for a while now that the U.S. needs to switch to a Westminster system of parliament for a few years now. Lately people have stopped scoffing at the thought...
Click to expand...


No, We do not need to become like England....
 
yllus

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
pcgeek11 said:
No, We do not need to become like England....
Click to expand...

Watch a Parliamentary session or two. It's hard to argue it's not a better-run, more accountable system than the American equivalent.
 
V

Victorian Gray

Lifer
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
MongGrel said:
More thumbs.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

The world needs more funk.
Click to expand...

Youbetcha

Clinton.jpg
 
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
ivwshane said:
We have a "two party" system because that's what people have voted for. The fact that a third party candidate hasn't become president isn't a sign of a failed or corrupt democracy, it's a sign that democracy is working as it was intended.

If this this election season has taught us anything its that our democracy is working.
Click to expand...

Eh our election laws crafted by these two parties makes it rather difficult to impossible for 3rd parties to become viable. Social media is starting to erode some of that advantage. And how our national debates are run is corrupt. To get on the debate stage requires 15% polling. The CPB is run by both parties.

To get on ballots in every state requires a lot of effort for which smaller parties may not be capable. I could be wrong but I think this is the first election the Libertarian party is on all 50 states.

That isnt a sign democracy and freedom of choice is working. It is a sign the two entrenched parties have built barriers to entry for other smaller parties.
 
D

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Genx87 said:
Eh our election laws crafted by these two parties makes it rather difficult to impossible for 3rd parties to become viable. Social media is starting to erode some of that advantage. And how our national debates are run is corrupt. To get on the debate stage requires 15% polling. The CPB is run by both parties.

To get on ballots in every state requires a lot of effort for which smaller parties may not be capable. I could be wrong but I think this is the first election the Libertarian party is on all 50 states.

That isnt a sign democracy and freedom of choice is working. It is a sign the two entrenched parties have built barriers to entry for other smaller parties.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Sure the electorate has voted for these two parties time and time again but the reality is the choices on the proverbial political menu has itself has been purposefully crafted to present the picture that their are only two viable options available.

And if you ask for something on the menu that isn't there but is within all reason capable of being added then all sorts of excuses are trotted out as to why that political stove in the back can only cook to styles of the same dish but nothing else.
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,765
6,770
126
There is nothing that can be done but dream. To change the system would require sufficient votes to pass constitutional amendments. It would require public financing of elections, change to the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people and money is speech, and a ballot with none of the above and an ordered preference where if your first choice didn't win your vote would be transferred to your second choice so that you would not be obliged to vote for the lesser of two evils as the first choice. None of this will ever happen if the people are not in the lead to achieve these goals. The only alternative is collapse of our system and revolution as far as I can see. Of course a black swan event can't be predicted by definition.
 
pcgeek11

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,378
4,998
136
yllus said:
Watch a Parliamentary session or two. It's hard to argue it's not a better-run, more accountable system than the American equivalent.
Click to expand...

Well you are entitled to your Opinion. We fought a war to get away from England.
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,066
4,712
126
ivwshane said:
We have a "two party" system because that's what people have voted for. The fact that a third party candidate hasn't become president isn't a sign of a failed or corrupt democracy, it's a sign that democracy is working as it was intended.

If this this election season has taught us anything its that our democracy is working.
Click to expand...
Like GenX87 said, our system makes a viable third party very difficult to start. You can't get on the ballot or on national debates unless you have a huge support, you can't have a huge support until you've been on the ballot, etc. The winner-takes-all laws in 48 states reinforce this even more. You can't gradually become a stronger 3rd party, since with a winner-takes-all approach you get 0 electoral votes. Instead you have to miraculously go from nothing to a very strong 3rd party. The barrier to entry is just too high.

But there are even more difficult challenges even once you got a third party started. Our electoral college essentially forces us into a 1-party or 2-party system. You need an absolute majority to win. If we had say four viable parties with a hypothetical electoral college vote distribution of 70, 100, 168, and 200 votes then our one strong point of democracy in our representative democracy is erased. The popular vote doesn't count, and the house votes for president. As long as we have more than 2 viable parties, this will happen and we'd almost never have democratically elected presidents. Which brings us back to the OP's post.

Take your pick: (a) a one or two party system or (b) the loss of your power in voting for a president. I'd personally choose option (c) ditch the electoral college, winner-takes-all, our terrible public funding state, inability to form coalitions, and other system-wide barriers to viable 3rd parties.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom