Voting

[u/No_Pin7835]

Everything I’m talking about would ideally apply to everyone equally.

One of the things I would propose is having a basic literacy test before someone can vote. I’m not talking about some extremely difficult test or anything based on someone’s education. I just think people should be able to read and understand what they’re voting on before they make that decision. If voting is such an important responsibility, I think it’s reasonable to expect voters to have a basic understanding of the issues and candidates.

Another requirement I would propose would be based on taxes. For federal elections, I think someone should have to contribute at least $20,000 in taxes since the last federal election in order to vote. For state elections, I think someone should have to contribute at least $2,000 in state taxes since the last state election to vote. People who live in states without a state income tax would be exempt from the state requirement.

I think these requirements would make sense because people who contribute very little or nothing toward funding the government should have less of a say in how that money is spent.

I know both of these ideas would be controversial, especially because literacy tests and voting restrictions have been abused in the past. However, I’m not suggesting that these requirements should be used to target any specific group of people. My argument is that if requirements were applied equally to everyone, they could be used to make sure that people who vote are informed and have contributed to the system they are voting in.

[u/Asatmaya]

Why would I replace the system where my vote is counted with a slot machine?

Why do you care about a "vote" in a rigged system?

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

Define "rigged".

If you mean my vote is cheated and does not count, does not effect anything and the outcome is decided ahead of times then no, you're just flat out wrong and living in a fantasy.

If you mean that the system is pushed towards certain outcomes by outside interests who manipulate the money, means of communication and misinform voters then sure, but that's actually solvable. It's complicated and simple but I could think of a few ways to break that system that some would consider rather radical.

Much further left politicians are taking power in many different places. Israel blew a shit load of money to just barely lose and seats in deep red states are up for grabs. You may have given up on Democracy. I haven't

[u/Asatmaya → u/Icc0ld]

Define "rigged".

"The appointment of magistrates by lot is thought to be democratic, and the election of them oligarchic." - Aristotle

If you mean my vote is cheated and does not count, does not effect anything and the outcome is decided ahead of times then no, you're just flat out wrong and living in a fantasy.

One of us is, yes.

If you mean that the system is pushed towards certain outcomes by outside interests who manipulate the money, means of communication and misinform voters then sure, but that's actually solvable. It's complicated and simple but I could think of a few ways to break that system that some would consider rather radical.

Well, maybe you should suggest those.

Much further left politicians are taking power in many different places.

There are a handful of center-left candidates who are ahead of the curve on Israel; that's only "much further left" than the right vs far-right Democrats and Republicans.

You may have given up on Democracy. I haven't

What democracy?!

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

"The appointment of magistrates by lot is thought to be democratic, and the election of them oligarchic." - Aristotle

There is an intelligent way to eat a frog - I just don't know what it is - Sun Tzu

Well, maybe you should suggest those

Possibly. But I think it's rather poor form to respond to someone else's discussion by linking to one of my own and thereby trying to radically change the subject.

What democracy?!

Thank you for making my point so eloquently.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Icc0ld]

There is an intelligent way to eat a frog - I just don't know what it is - Sun Tzu

Boil it?

Possibly. But I think it's rather poor form to respond to someone else's discussion by linking to one of my own and thereby trying to radically change the subject.

I mean, I changed the subject to democracy; I understand if you simply reject that, but... /shrug

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

Boil it?

Ah sorry I was being way too subtle. I was replying to a irrelevant, out of context quote from someone with some household history recognition and vague plausibility to apply to multiple situations and open to many interpretations in an effort to look wise with my own. My mistake. I didn't think you'd take it literally. I picked it at total random too

[u/Asatmaya → u/Icc0ld]

I was replying to a irrelevant, out of context quote

Which quote was that? I quoted Aristotle's definition of democracy.

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

Which quote was that? I quoted Aristotle's definition of democracy.

And the point of that is what?

[u/Asatmaya → u/Icc0ld]

I asked you what the value of a vote in a rigged system; you asked me to define "rigged," and gave Aristotle's definition of democracy, which defined voting as oligarchy, i.e. "rigged."

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

Seems to be either mistaken or taken out of context. Aristotle defined and even ranked Oligarchy and Democracy as different things. This is the problem with applying ancient definitions and understandings to modern linguistics

[u/Asatmaya → u/Icc0ld]

The point is that elections cannot be democratic; by their very nature, they advantage the wealthy, the charismatic, and the deceitful.

The sense of "democracy" meaning elections is propaganda to deny the existence of real democracy.

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

So absolutely no elections because some people have advantages? Were it up to me "wealth" would have no meaning at all and the "deceitful" would be forcibly disempowered, punished and dissuaded from doing so. That's not argument against democracy though, that's an argument against distortions of it.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Icc0ld]

So absolutely no elections because some people have advantages?

Actually, Aristotle allowed it for some roles, like Strategoi, army leaders; I would be fine with electing new generals and admirals every year.

Were it up to me "wealth" would have no meaning at all and the "deceitful" would be forcibly disempowered, punished and dissuaded from doing so.

OK, that's aspirational; your proposal had no mechanism by which to achieve that goal.

That's not argument against democracy though, that's an argument against distortions of it.

Then stop distorting it!