Democracy in Government ...Is It Real?

[jordan]

About the "how do you know who answered the phone" thing, the reason for the question is, how do you know it isn't a 16 year old saying he's John Johnson and voting when he shouldn't be alowed? You can't just ask for ID or anything.

[Tesseract]

About the "how do you know who answered the phone" thing, the reason for the question is, how do you know it isn't a 16 year old saying he's John Johnson and voting when he shouldn't be alowed? You can't just ask for ID or anything.

 

Good point about that, I didnt think people would be so sinister.

[jordan]

Well, you have to take everything into account when you plan on making such a drastic change.

[Tesseract]

Well, you have to take everything into account when you plan on making such a drastic change.

 

I suppose on the phone you would ask for their name, date of birth, and social security number.

[Tesseract]

And its not really a drastic change, it uses the same government, same congress, same prime minister but the MPs follow what the people say, from their votes.Then they put their hand up for the will of the people.

[jordan]

I suppose on the phone you would ask for their name, date of birth, and social security number.

This is still fairly simple to obtain.

 

 

And its not really a drastic change, it uses the same government, same congress, same prime minister but the MPs follow what the people say, from their votes.

It's drastic in the sense that people now have much more responsability and power. Not everyone is prepaired for this added responsability, hence the campaign posters and TV comercials to sway the votes of the people who don't actualy listen to the issues.

 

 

Then they put their hand up for the will of the people.

Like our electoral college? That doesn't always go over so well. People don't like having a few hundred votes in the hands of one man. (Cite the 2000 election).

 

Oh, and for future refrence, please try to consolidate everything into one post, especially when you're adressing the same person and the same post. If you are just doing it for the post count, really stop doing it.

[Tesseract]

This is still fairly simple to obtain.

 

 

 

It's drastic in the sense that people now have much more responsability and power. Not everyone is prepaired for this added responsability' date=' hence the campaign posters and TV comercials to sway the votes of the people who don't actualy listen to the issues.

 

 

 

Like our electoral college? That doesn't always go over so well. People don't like having a few hundred votes in the hands of one man. (Cite the 2000 election).

 

Oh, and for future refrence, please try to consolidate everything into one post, especially when you're adressing the same person and the same post. If you are just doing it for the post count, [b']really[/b] stop doing it.

 

1)Why would someone bother to want to know , or actually guess the person to be called?

 

2)Its not added reponsability, its normal responsability, that the whole point , its not he choice of one person to do the choosing anyway its a whole lot of people.

 

3)I didnt want to edit my post.To lazy.

[jordan]

I can see we are not completely understanding one another, so I'll make one last post on it. Consider it carefully and if you have any questions that don't already have answers, I'll answer them.

 

 

1)Why would someone bother to want to know , or actually guess the person to be called?

One can't know for sure who they are talking to. That's the point. We do have a law restricting the age of voters to 18 after all. We don't want just anyone answering the phone and giving a vote off the top of there head because they feel powerful when they pretend to be someone older and vote. We want to ensure that the sample of people are who we chose and and who they say they are. If only 1 in 100 vote under someone elses name, and you're only talking about a few hundred votes, that can make a difference.

 

 

2)Its not added reponsability, its normal responsability, that the whole point , its not he choice of one person to do the choosing anyway its a whole lot of people.

The added responsibility is on the whole lot of people you are calling. They have to deal with issues they've never been able to vote on before and make sure they know where they stand so if they get called they can answer. Not everyone will take the time to care. Besides, our current system has people voting for congressmen who then vote on the issues, much like your proposed system. The only difference is that in your way you pick a new guy every issue, my way every two years.

 

 

3)I didnt want to edit my post.To lazy.

Future refrence is all. Don't do it again.

[Dave]

The only proper and secure way to do it would be through post, somewhat similar to calling people for jury duty.

[Tesseract]

...The added responsibility is on the whole lot of people you are calling. They have to deal with issues they've never been able to vote on before and make sure they know where they stand so if they get called they can answer. Not everyone will take the time to care. Besides' date=' our current system has people voting for congressmen who then vote on the issues, much like your proposed system. The only difference is that in your way you pick a new guy every issue, my way every two years.

 

Future refrence is all. Don't do it again.[/quote']

 

You dont pick a new guy for every issue its the same person?...representative.

 

"Future refrence is all. Don't do it again"

 

Yes, master jordan.

[Tesseract]

The only proper and secure way to do it would be through post, somewhat similar to calling people for jury duty.

Can you explain that a bit more please.

[Sayonara]

Can you explain that a bit more please.

What's to explain?

[Tesseract]

What's to explain?

Daves post.

[Sayonara]

Daves post.

Yeah, real funny.

 

Which bit don't you understand? Looked pretty self-explanatory to me.

[Tesseract]

I dont know, what did he mean by :"do it would be through post, somewhat similar to calling people for jury duty."

 

I dont understand that part.

[Sayonara]

Oh right, his entire post.

 

You don't understand how the postal system works maybe? Or perhaps it's that you've never heard of jury service?

[Tesseract]

Oh right' date=' his [i']entire post[/i].

 

You don't understand how the postal system works maybe? Or perhaps it's that you've never heard of jury service?

Oh, ok now I get it.

[brave_new_world]

Back to the original topic

 

I agree that the current U.S. democracy is not at all a democracy any more but a monarchy.

Only the powers are the corporations that fund the presidents not the presidents.

 

I also believe the whole republican,democrats party rivalry is a well, force-fed illusion.

Take some time to really look at the issues and how much they DON'T DIFFER. They are both almost in it together. Fighting against each other but at the same time keeping out any other 3rd parties that are running.

 

It all ties back to the big corporations which only fund and give air time to the democrats and republicans.(excluding ross perot,who had his own money)

 

I dont know much about politics but this is my view on what is happening im open to any thoughts.

[Aardvark]

US politics may be about corporate money and excluding 3rd parties but that doesn't actualy make the US a monarchy.

 

Anyway monarchys aren't all bad!

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

Back to the original topic

 

I agree that the current U.S. democracy is not at all a democracy any more but a monarchy.

Only the powers are the corporations that fund the presidents not the presidents.

 

I also believe the whole republican' date='democrats party rivalry is a well, force-fed illusion.

Take some time to really look at the issues and how much they DON'T DIFFER. They are both almost in it together. Fighting against each other but at the same time keeping out any other 3rd parties that are running.

 

It all ties back to the big corporations which only fund and give air time to the democrats and republicans.(excluding ross perot,who had his own money)

 

I dont know much about politics but this is my view on what is happening im open to any thoughts.[/quote']

 

MR. RUSSERT: Before we go, you and George Bush were both members of Skull & Bones, the secret society at Yale. The rule is, if someone mentions Skull & Bones, you walk out of the room. If you're both in a...

 

SEN. KERRY: You trying to get rid of me here?

 

Full transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/

 

Russert: You were both in Skull and Bones, the secret society.

 

President Bush: It's so secret we can't talk about it.

 

Russert: What does that mean for America? The conspiracy theorists are going to go wild.

 

President Bush: I'm sure they are. I don’t know. I haven't seen Web pages yet. (Laughs)

 

Full transript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

 

Some more info and video: http://slate.msn.com/id/1007560/

 

 

America is a country with tens of millions of people eligible to run for president, yet the two candidates are part of a group with less than 1,000 living members. Things that make you go HMMMMMM.

[Sayonara]

Skull & Bones is such a happy name.

[Aardvark]

I'll sleep better tonight knowing that whoever wins in November, it'll be a Skulls and Bones frat boy.

 

 

And to think i was getting a bit worried.

[Tesseract]

Well, you guys in the US have pretty crappy candidates...but Paul Martin is also an idiot, and Mr.Blair.

[jgerlica]

All this November will be is a choice of which is the lesser of two evils. Quite depressing actually.

[Tesseract]

All this November will be is a choice of which is the lesser of two evils. Quite depressing actually.

 

I would say Bush is worse, but thats just my opinion.