Why you should vote.

As I say guys, I was initially merely stating why I don't vote at the present time and simply saying which kind of voting system I would prefer to see in place and one which would encourage me to vote, which is essentially, a 'selective democracy' (yes it is possible to merge the two). I never said this alternative system should be in place because I said so, nor am I suggesting it is the only way forward. I just think it would be more effective than the current system and should at least be considered. As I say clearly radical changes need to be made to the current system. I require no aplologies or kisses from you whatsoever. It's just, you seemed to taking the discussion more seriously than is necessary, not that I am demanding that you take it less seriously either. I am anything but, a fascist.

I could probably extend this debate with you for another 1 or 2 hundred posts but there's not much point in that seen as it would descend into a stalemated convince-the-other war and at the end of it our views would remain exactly the same as they did in the beginning. I won't do that, but, I will recommend you guys to check out the following website which will shed a lot more light on this political system I mentioned, which is better known as geniocracy:

www.geniocracy.net/forum/index.php

This is Merlin....signing off. ZZZZZttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!

 

Or intellectual snobbery, elitism etc etc etc....

 

Thanks for posting that link Merlin, I hadn't heard of geniocracy before (probably not clever enough) and I always enjoy learning new ideas. I didn't find mention on that site of the idea of preventing people from voting, its focus was much more on ensuring that only geniuses can be political candidates. Preventing people from voting is much the dodgier idea, it directly removes representation and limits suffrage according to rigid criteria. I did find mention on another site about Claude Verilhon (who invented geniocracy after being visited by aliens) that the system states that only those who are 50% above average intelligence can stand for election, and only those who are 10% above average intelligence can vote. I'm sure there are different versions of this.

"Selective democracy" is an oxymoron. Look up "democracy" - rule by the common people. Geniocracy is self-proclaimed elitism - rule by an intellectual elite. If you prevent people from standing or voting based on certain characteristics, it is something other than democracy. The ideas are based on a desire to have thinkers and philosophers as leaders and this is a laudable goal, but attempting to achieve it by legislation and strict trait selection is distinctly problematic. One of the most obvious problems is with the proposed IQ tests which determine someone's ability to take part in the electoral process. It is well known that IQ tests measure only certain skills. There is no such thing as a test which can adequately measure all the different types of intelligence. There is the very real danger of excluding certain kinds of people who would not be able to perform well in such tests but who could conceivably have much to offer by participating in the democratic process. This would also remove representation from certain portions of the population - their voice would not be heard in Parliament, they would be reliant on someone else's ability to empathise with rather than directly represent their plight. Their non-representative voice in the House might have an agenda quite different from theirs - he would stand for the wider interest rather than a perfectly valid minority interest.

People bring not only intelligence to their work, but experience, wisdom, thoughts and knowledge which cannot be measured by a limiting set of tests which only measure certain types of ability.

We certainly need a better system of government; our system is rotten. But this particular idea is seriously flawed and represents a very clear danger in its focus on removing direct democratic representation and installing an elite who would by definition not be representative of the full spectrum of human ability.

Also, read up on geniocratic support for Eugenics. They advocate strict governmental control of the genepool, thereby shaping the genetic future of mankind according to certain criteria. This is not a liberal idea in any way. It is restrictive and open to mistakes and abuse. They don't say anything as crass as that they want to breed certain intellectual characteristics (like an ability to perform well in the cognitive abilities measured by IQ tests), they focus on achieving maximum genetic diversity. They would do this by limiting people's ability to choose to have children. The clear implication of this is that they believe there are certain undesirable traits in the genepool which need to be weeded out. I think that's a pretty dangerous idea.

The whole thing is based on an assumption that certain people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, and that these people must be controlled instead by an elite who are the only ones who know how people should live their lives. That isn't freedom, it's the opposite.

I think you're being a bit touchy here about people taking the ideas you presented "too seriously" or being "overly heated". Lively debate is a very enjoyable and important thing, it's a great way to test ideas. I hope what you say above is not the case - if you approach a discussion with the assumption that your ideas will never change then you're really missing out. I hope you're open-minded enough to read this and openly consider the points I've raised, just as I was open-minded enough to learn a little about and ponder upon the implications of geniocracy, both good and bad. Like I said before, its intention is pointing in the right direction, but there are some serious problems with it and I do detect an underlying snobbery and arrogance despite its claims to the contrary.

 

Ahh Dok, you are my new hero


'Measures to stop certain people and ideas getting into parliament' is a ridiculous idea. The right think they are correct, that's the thing, they'd jump at the chance to stop all the bloody 'hippies/communists/liberals' from being allowed into parliament, or being prevented from voting. But as dok said, it's a democracy. People have a vast range of different ideologies and we have to accomadate them all somehow.
I know you think you're correct in your views merlin, and I expect I agree with you over most of them, but there are many people who think differently to you. It doesn't mean they're all facists obviously, but you just can't unfairly represent people like that.


And as another thing!
Lots and lots of people don't vote: possible change in system.

Same vast number of people previously not voting because of desire for change in system (which, realistically, is unlikely to happen anytime soon) now voting for green party (or similar):.....do you see what might happen!!!

 

And as for the women dying school of argument for voting, it does not mean that is the only reason why I will vote. Take that away and I'll still have a million other reasons for voting, I just meant that on that alone I can always be assured that I will vote (for the forseeable future that is), because it means so much to me.

 

>>>>>>>>>I think you're being a bit touchy here about people taking the ideas you presented "too seriously" or being "overly heated". Lively debate is a very enjoyable and important thing, it's a great way to test ideas. I hope what you say above is not the case - if you approach a discussion with the assumption that your ideas will never change then you're really missing out.<<<<<

See, the thing is Showmet, did I say that? What I said was that we could argue and argue and argue about it and there will almost certainly be a stalemate, won't there? I hope you're not assuming that I don't enjoy such discussions as much as you do, nor suggesting that I gain less from them.

>>>>>>I hope you're open-minded enough to read this and openly consider the points I've raised, just as I was open-minded enough to learn a little about and ponder upon the implications of geniocracy, both good and bad. <<<

Your hopes are not in vain, Showmet I can assure you. I will stress that my recommendation of the website for that Geniocracy forum was a mere suggestion. Wether you ignored it or rejected it was entirely up to you and I wouldn't even dream of saying you are not being open minded whatever you did.

Ding! Ding! Showmet and Dok retribution round 48056!!!

 

It is easy to be afraid of geniuses. We are brought up in a society that teaches us to be insecure. So when you are placed in the heirarchy we are indoctrinated with an idea that being at the bottom of the hierarchy is somehow worse than being at the top.

An entire community is an integrated entity. Like any organism, even though there may be some parts directing or thinking on behalf of the rest of the organism, every single aspect is fundamental for the survival and continuance of that entity.

Neurons do not contract like a muscle because they are not developed to do so, and muscle cells do not help generate thoughts as they are designed to move the entity around.

Part of the problem lies in our social values being so focused on having and appearance. This distorts the true value of leadership, which is not about power, but responsibility of the community.

Again, it is easy to be afraid of a leader, since we have been taught and continually see demonstrated, a leader enforcing his own agenda against the will of the public. How do they do this? Simple they have a military to support their authority.

A geniocratic government has NO army or military. It does not seek to hold it's estate through enforcing authority. Rather it seeks to provide the best solution for humanity so that people will desire to support their governors because they will know the governers have their best interests (and the society's) in mind.

A geniocratic government instead maintains power by solving social problems and making itself too valuable to be ignored.

One of my idols , Mahatma Ghandi prooved to the world that a Minority, even empowered with a military cannot rule without the consent of the majority.

Again this is explained in the manifesto.
It describes how society functions on a balance that the government must maintain. When things like crime and other social problems occur then they are not functioning and it means it's time for new representatives.

People are so scared of not being empowered to vote, because they are used to living in a society where they have so little control over themself.

So you can see that a geniocratic government can only exist at the will of the people even after they have become a geniocracy. Because the role of a government, certes, is to serve.

So in that manner, a government is actually on the bottom of the heirarchy, not the top

 

You stated that "at the end of it our views would remain exactly the same as they did in the beginning". I feel I can learn a lot from debating with lively and informed minds, it often forces me to reconsider what I think and in the process my views are interrogated, challenged and consequently refined. I gain much from the process, I'd hope that others participating would do the same. Forgive me if I misinterpreted your comment as closure to this possibility. A big smoochy kiss is still on offer. (You know you want it.)

I'm not sure I like accusations such as "retribution" or sweeping judgements like "you seem to enjoy overly heated debate". You've responded to challenges to the ideas you presented with this kind of comment but haven't answered any of the points raised. I think there have been some very specific and well-argued challenges to the utopian ideals of geniocracy made in this thread, none of which have been taken up. So in the immortal words of John Major, "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago":
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=99230&postcount=49

 

>>>>>> A big smoochy kiss is still on offer. (You know you want it.)

Erm, no in fact.



>>>>>>>>>>>>You've responded to challenges to the ideas you presented with this kind of comment but haven't answered any of the points raised.

Oh yes I f+$%£ing have.

 

This is all based on intellectual elitism and a patriarchal model of society. There's a tacit assumption that intellect equates with good judgement. Have you never noticed how equally intelligent people can actually disagree on an issue? The 'best interest of society' will often be a matter of opinion, not fact. So in that regard, intelligence is not necessarily a factor.

You equate the act of arguing an opinion with retribution? What you're witnessing here is debate. Retribution would be coming round to your house and burning it down. If you're not comfortable with subjecting your views to scrutiny, then you shouldn't be posting them on a public discussion board.

When I get a minute, I'm going to start a new thread on this to avoid cluttering this one with multiple issues.

Flattery will get you everywhere! Did I mention you're the cutest girl on the boards?

 

I beg to differ. Here are a few of the objections which are unanswered:

- denying the vote removes representation and is something other than democracy;
- limiting the choice of candidates excludes minority interests in favour of elite interests;
- universal suffrage is a cornerstone of democracy and is the only thing that creates a perception of fairness;
- IQ tests are flawed and take no account of certain valuable skills and alternative perspectives;
- who decides the criteria on which people can join the elite - the elite themselves? Conflict of interest;
- creation of a disenfranchised underclass with no democratic voice;
- sidelining and possible exclusion of perfectly valid political positions;
- the assumption that the elite will always be right no matter what;
- the idea that people are not capable of making free decisions of their own;
- governmental control of the genepool, eugenics (Hitler was a big fan of this);
- a certain elitist arrogance.

 

>>>>>>[/i]You equate the act of arguing an opinion with retribution? What you're witnessing here is debate. Retribution would be coming round to your house and burning it down. If you're not comfortable with subjecting your views to scrutiny, then you shouldn't be posting them on a public discussion board.<<<<<<<<

Errrr....I think I am comfortable with my view being scrutinized. I've done it before. I will do it many times in the future thanks. If I wasn't comfortable with them, I would never have even thought of posting them on here.

Why don't you come and burn my house down? I'll tell you the address if you want dude (joke).

 

Showmet you said I had answered NONE of your points raised but that is not true. The others you have mentioned which I haven't answered to, I would argue to but I have little time at the moment with work.

 

Wow! This is fun, doen't life rock!!???

 

Then perhaps it might be wise not to use the word 'retribution' in connection with people simply replying to your points?

 

Ohh, tut, *giggles*

 

Well, I saw a lot of utopian rhetoric, but I would question the entire foundation of much of this rhetoric - simply making assertions or introducing a neat metaphor about society as an organism doesn't make it true. Neither does it answer a specific criticism. There are many distinct problems with the actual imposition and running of such a system, and that's what I was trying to get to the heart of.

It's a fascinating thought experiment and as such extremely valuable but if you truly examine and analyse its practicalities there are some very serious flaws and downfalls - surely you can see this? It's not an entirely bad idea, but neither is it a panacea - not by a long way.

 

Imagine if there was a completely zero turnout, I mean if nobody voted would that mean we didn't get a government and were left to our own devices or would it mean that a coalition was formed, or would the existing government remain?


In Australia where you can get fined for not voting they have a "null" box for people who don't support any of the parties. I don't believe that it should be compulsory to vote but I wonder how many people would tick a 'null' box and whether anyone would take notice of the statistics.

 

in brazil you can go to jail for not voting

I think you should vote regardless of your position in society in or out of it however to send someone to jail for not doing so????????? .. the null box is a good thing to have as it is a statement in its own right as opposed to i cant be bothered to do it.

 

I still think there should be a wider variety of political parties around than there is at present, so that there is a party for anybody and therefore there is a party for EVERYONE, to vote for. At least it's not just Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats anymore.