The Back Room

[Seraphi]

People will corrupt a completely democratic system.

 

Don't want to vote for my option? Maybe you'll have an "Unfortunate Accident".

 

I'm not a politiician, and don't claim to know much about it, but I know that system would not work.

[Retech]

People should have to take a test to vote. And have a college diploma, which does not include clown college.

[Iconic]

Ross. It's just the same as voting here except we'd have to come up with an easier system to vote than queueing for such a long time. And even so a very small amount would when we are voting on small issue's, it partially happens in America

If your reffering to Mathers system in regards to whether people should have a lump of there brain scooped out (probably costing a lot of public money) resulting in the person being brain damaged for the rest of there life decided by vote than there will be problems, IE If a friend or valued member of the community was arrested

 

retech, why do you need to pass college to vote?

[Grim_]

If you ask me that would be slightly classist (unless we adopt the general European style of having colleges free at the pass of a test) as not everyone can afford a college education. I do think the test would be valid if it was on political science and things that would actually be relevant to political discussion (ie you shouldn't need to analyze roman frescoes to be able to vote). If one were to institute the test it would have to be taken every time you vote (and allow a limited number of retakes per time of vote).

[Retech]

Well-educated = Less likely to be mislead

 

 

College would be free (or subsidized, so that it was affordable). I would personally adopt the Japanese system, where basically everyone has to graduate high school and 50%+ finish college.

 

Move towards a technologically advanced economy, by replacing as many jobs as possible with robots (which would undoubtly become cheaper as a result of more engineers and scientists available for that). This would lead to the temporary loss of jobs further down the scale, which would ripple to adults going back to college and finding jobs further up the education ladder. Make education the primary desirability in the media and change our culture, so that dropping out of high school is a greater shame than any other, except for violent crime. Encourage people to retake high school (or take it for more years) until they pass.

[Ieyfura]

Now now, we all know that in reality, the world is secretly run by the CIA. lol (I'd contribute something meaningful, but I'm sure Techy and Nex know my equation for Politics lol)

[Grim_]

The thing is retech that would cost quite a bit of cash to make college free. Which would result in higher taxes, which would result in the conservatives [bleep]ing for awhile. Also assuming 70-80% of the manufacturing is done in third world countries the united states would not be hit all too hard (Well at first at least) whilst we rip the living [cabbage] out of the third world's economy when they are not offering a free college education. So in short not much would change (aside from some construction workers with liberal arts majors) and we would be hard hit economically (and piss quite a few people off).

 

The reason why I like a basic political science test for this would be that it would force the populace to become better educated and it would cut down on the number of uninformed and misled people by a fair margin (providing the test itself was neutral to political ideologies). This would result in a far greater number of informed voters than say a free liberal arts or math major. That being said I do agree that higher education should in fact be heavily subsidized or free (to make it possible for the public to be better educated).

[paul191600]

Well-educated = Less likely to be mislead

 

 

College would be free (or subsidized, so that it was affordable). I would personally adopt the Japanese system, where basically everyone has to graduate high school and 50%+ finish college.

 

Move towards a technologically advanced economy, by replacing as many jobs as possible with robots (which would undoubtly become cheaper as a result of more engineers and scientists available for that). This would lead

to the temporary loss of jobs further down the scale, which would ripple to adults going back to college and finding jobs further up the education ladder. Make education the

primary desirability in the media and change our culture, so that dropping out of high school is a greater shame than

any other, except for violent crime. Encourage people to retake high school (or take it for more years) until they pass.

>get rid of peoples jobs and make everyone scientists.

Your logic is flawed

[Iconic]

Everyone has a right to vote, the English bullet pointed manifesto's are so easy to understand that even a child can vote. A big problem is that a lot of people vote for change instead of for what the best option is and that's why laws should be voted not partys.

 

Although I have had no experience of college and my school marks in English, Science, humanities are good I cannot express my rage at how you can think that because somone didn't pass college they don't have a right to vote! Everyone of an age to decide should have a vote, why would they not? Basically 50% population would be second class citizens and you'd be spewing propaganda against the Jews immigrants Muslims teenagers people who didn't pass college will frankly not be happy and the thing is they are not a small minority you can pick on, they will destroy your government, even 10% could.

[Iconic]

I cannot express my rage at how you can think that because somone didn't pass college they don't have a right to vote!

 

Because some hick who has no idea about the way the world works, watches Fox News 24/7 like an arrogant bastard and generally doesn't know what the hell he's voting for has more power in government than a well-educated 17 year old.

Some people are good at maths or whatever but are absoloute [developmentally delayed]s in real life, infact at my school a lot of people are suprisingly stupid but get good marks. I think that maybe a short test on a booklet given would be good (Grim's point) but having to prove your good at Maths, English and Pottery has nothing to do with voting.

Frankly I think that news should be neutral, the equivelant to fox news in England is the Sun and they mindlessly followed labour until they apparently caused a reccession (they didn't) and went with the public who didn't like Gordon brown and started supporting David Cameron.

Newspapers and news should be impartial, only facts should be given in an unbiased way.

[paul191600]

All media is biased, barring a few random tabloids perhaps.

[a_bert]

You're an idiot if you think the Sun is "mindlessly" following anyone. Rupert Murdoch is the second coming of Peter Mandelson. Maybe the first.

[Grim_]

Rocco that would effectively raise the voting age to 21-25 (assuming a 3 year college graduation). While it is true that college does foster useful skills (outside of your choice of study) unless we make university free (or very heavily subsidized) it would result in mild classism (the poor cannot afford to go to x university and so they cannot vote).

 

On a note about my pet idea the only real downside I can think of is lack of voter turn out and cost (which can be solved by programing the quiz into voting machines as well as the quiz booklet). The lack of voter turn out can be solved easily as well by making voting mandatory (or at the very least attempting the test until you either pass or your use up your tries) so if one does not vote one would suffer a fine or a small raise in their income tax (well the income tax rate would go up but you would get a tax reduction for voting).

[Retech]

To Paul, I don't believe my logic is flawed. US productivity would not decline, since robots are performing the work instead of a human. The money would be funneled to the robot scientists and corporations, which could continue the road to a mechanized economy. Therefore, the people who have been displaced would find work, in a different field or up the ladder. It would improve the market efficiency, instead of being stuck with an economy where we are uncompetitive with the world.

 

What we could do is that we have two-year vocational schools, which would be cheaper and provide a middle level of education.

 

 

Making voter turnout suffer does not matter. This is not the times of old where everyone is involved with the political process.

[paul191600]

To Paul, I don't believe my logic is flawed. US productivity would not decline, since robots are performing the work instead of a human. The money would be funneled to the robot scientists and corporations, which could continue the road to a mechanized economy. Therefore, the people who have been displaced would find work, in a different field or up the ladder. It would improve the market efficiency, instead of being stuck with an economy where we are uncompetitive with the world.

 

What we could do is that we have two-year vocational schools, which would be cheaper and provide a middle level of education.

 

 

Making voter turnout suffer does not matter. This is not the times of old where everyone is involved with the political process.

The problem is, shoving a textbook down a person's throat won't make them a scientist. You can beat them over with a chemistry book, slap on some goggles and replace their clothing with a lab-coat, but this won't make a person a scientist. They have to have the natural desire to pursue such a career, whether it be in robotics, engineering and etc. The people who have no desire to have a job in one of the fields is essentially screwed over by the system. Want to be a cop? Too bad, a robot has your job (I.e). Ultimately, taking away certain job opportunities takes away from the individuality of society, something that many people are against.

 

Another inherent problem with this system is putting it in place. How do you think that garbageman Joe is going to react when he hears he is being replaced by a robot? Now he has to go back to college and use another 4 years of his life pursuing a major while possibly having to support a family. Of course, let's say he finishes college, then goes job hunting. There is no guarantee that he will find a job, considering that a large percent of the population is now jobless, looking for a career. In the end, people will be frustrated, discontent will be at an all-time high and there is a strong chance that there will be revolts / riots.

 

You also speak of funneling money into corporations and scientists. In essence this is creating a plutocracy of sorts, since the elite few (top scientists, head of corporation, the elite) are getting the biggest cut of pay. Small businesses? They get cut out of the picture. How is entrepreneurship supposed to be encouraged in this situation?

[paul191600]

tl;dr the system is about as good as it's gonna get. if there were a way to make it better, they would've made it better by now.

Lol forgot the tl;dr, guess you did that job for me :rolleyes:

[Jehosaphat]

Ew. Politics.

[Retech]

They are making it better, in Japan. My method was actually just more direct. In Japan, they have a shortage of people being janitors and garbagemen because so many people are educated, no one wants to be those. Since the wages then go up, they find more incentive to use robots.

 

A plutocracy is a good thing, if people are being paid based on productivity.

 

 

 

Our society cannot survive without having people work where they are needed to work. If a job is no longer needed, then market forces should insure that it isn't available. Our society is terribly flawed in some respects. If robots are more efficient and more cost-effective, robots should be used. The economy should correct itself if it is healthy, and it definitely isn't healthy at this point.

 

The standard of living for some will increase and for many will decrease, which would encourage them to find oppertunities further up the education scale. Otherwise, they can find other jobs.

 

 

In the end, the economy can only improve. Temporarily the standard of living might suffer, but after 5-10 years, the US economy would be among the most competitive and efficient economies in the world.

[Earth]

Hey dudes, i won't be as active unlees it's a weekend, so you won't be seeing as much of me. I'll start up Overlording 2 this weeked, so.. See you guys and your wacky politics later.

[Ieyfura]

Ew. Politics.

 

^This

[The_Mather1]

There are thousands of flaws I can see in your thing, mainly the fact that an uneducated bunch of dumbnuts will just come up with a torturous punishment (such as lobotomy).

And therefore the community will be bribed and influence each other, basic lord of the flies situation. And your uneducated bunch of dumbnuts will than change there minds and than people commoting minor crimes that weren't even crimes a week ago will have there brain cut our or set on fire or whatever else the community decides.

 

And soon you will be saying that we should leave him in a pot for a week, maybe set fire to him and than execute him by a 1000 cuts or a breaking wheel. Because serial killer and whatever else has no rights. It's not extreme.

And this is why no intellectual would support your system.

Coruption is not when the entire system changes opinions, it is when it turns its back on society. The punishement for each crime would not get chosen like that, rather remain static.

And a lobotomy is simply a drill to the forehead.

[Grim_]

If I remember correctly lobotomies can be done through the eyes (with an instrument reminiscent of an ice pick) or chemically (no surgery at all just a [bleep]ed up brain!). In any rate I am rather opposed towards mob rule (basically what mather is describing) because I believe government should work for the best of us but have safeguards against the worst (and mob rule doesn't really have that many safe guards if you ask me).

[Iconic]

Yes but it leaves the person brain damaged? That's a form of torture whether it is done through a piece of wire, a spoon of a drill or maybe a bit of both. You will have all criminallys reminiscent of head [???] victims who can't talk, can't love again and have diminished motor skills and intellegence. You really want to do that based on mob rule, what'll happen is there will be lynching and you cocking up the brains of people who are lynched.

Basically the intellegent should stay as scientists and further the power wheras the best politically should stay in power.

Grim, if a constitution was placed in the hands of the citizens and then allow full democracy it woud basically e flaweless, all the laws would be by the people but none could break the constitution.

You would vote for laws instead of people, that way people are allowed to forget about who they like and just focus on the news.

News and telly should be impartial.

 

Basically, you can't name a single flaw because the population votes on what it wants, corruption is nearly impossible on such a large scale and although it may cost a lot we will all be a lot better off.

[The_Mather1]

In America those offenders would be killed, elsewhere they'd get multiple lifetime sentences. Making them emotioneless means they will not do so again, but they could still work to repay society for their actions.

I am of course still talking about extreme cases, else there'd just be mental institutions or comunity service. Or possibly banishement.

[Icuownage]

My personal view on politics, basically is the same as Rocco's or Ross's, there is NO perfect system, there never can be.

 

Although, I think the system we have now is FAR from the best we're ever going to get, to be honest, I'd like a leadership where the person proved their skills, that way more people would be inclined to follow, decisions though would swayed by personal opinion of the leader, and thus there is a problem.

 

Also Iconic, America (I'm sorry American's) has probably one of the worst leadership track record I've seen, comparable to the Roman's, where there is just too much power on one person and thus they get drunk on power or either one decision is going to piss off to many people, for instance, let's say there is 1,000,000,000 people, 650,000,000 want choice A, while 350,000,000 want choice B. Through voting you decide to go with choice A, and thus you have just annoyed 350,000,000 people, and lets say a small number of them get so pissed off that it actually causes riots, that could be majorly damaging to your country.

 

Also the fact that most people run on a caste system anyway, and everyone is a little bit racist, and such, so you're never going to be able to have two groups happy if their views are different.