Bay 12 Games Forum

Elves? Yes. Dwarves? Doubt it, they're to stubby.

perseverance is more important than speed, dwarves are stubborn

i wouldn't put it like that though, i'd say the cold war was less about competing systems and ideologies and more about competing superpowers. communism as an international movement may have died but plenty of socialized systems thrive in western nations. i also don't think capitalism will survive much longer in it's current shape, but that may just be my southern european point of view. i just hope the transition won't be too destructive, but the status quo isn't very benign either

i always do have trouble recognising him without the moustache. before i read the comments i thought it was a little girl

i believe the turnover would be smaller, but not so much as one would expect from looking at the fraction of the population that is politically active in the conventional system. If people felt voting was more meaningful (and adding requisites makes it sound much more like an important thing), it would motivate a large number of people to get more involved, including people that don't vote in this system.
People like voting, they like to have a voice, they'll put up an effort for it if they think of if as meaningful.

I reckon said system would probably give an advantage to the fringes of the political spectrum, but i think that's a good thing. people who don't pay much attention to politics tend to vote for one of two big centre parties, but if they get a little deeper into politics they usually tend to agree more with smaller, more focused parties. Though if you use a preferential voting system, even the polarized get to cast a vote for the lesser evil.

Cut the cynicism please. Basic politeness is advised for a progressive discussion.

i'm sorry i went there, i just hate that quote for a number of reasons. first it assumes "democracy" as a political system, as if the word was sufficiently descriptive. there are a lot of different systems called democratic with varying degrees of success in various areas. and then it goes on to admit that "democracy" has it's failures, while making it seem like it is impossible to improve upon. it's a catchy phrase with a dangerous message.

Watch out with quotes there. Putting words in other people's mouth's isn't nice.

Quote from: Askot Bokbondeler on August 25, 2013, 02:24:17 pm

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 25, 2013, 01:54:25 pm

Quote from: Askot Bokbondeler on August 25, 2013, 01:48:06 pm

I'm also not defending "cutting away the ignorants", as in, ban stupid people from voting, instead i argue that we should demand that people who want to vote participate more actively in politics.

But what about those who don't have the option to participate. That system could easily result in a group of political paria's, without vote and without rights.

who are those? the requirements should be pretty lax, like, go to any political event and get a stamp in your voter's card, get five stamps and you're ok to vote that year. political events should also be more frequent in a political system that demands aspiring voters to participate in them, and i can already easily find an event like this every week in the small city i live in

And what about the people that live out in the country? I mean, not everyone lives in a city. What about the sick, the elderly, and all those who can't make it. How about people with annoying job time, the poor, and those who live large amounts of time out of the country.

internet? participating on forums, filling out public opinion surveys, commenting on news pages, etc. people who live out on the country usually also have means to get to nearby cities when something interesting shows up, political events should qualify as interesting for a voter.
The sick: again, internet. one could also be excused from the requirements if one has a history of political activity prior to the sickness.
The elderly: what about them?
All those who can't make it: it's not like you have to show up at the same time and place every week. if you can't make it this time, other opportunities should come up.
People with annoying job time: the government should enforce the workers right to miss a few days of work per year to participate in these events\activities.
The poor: what about them?
Those who live large amounts of time out of the country: again, internet, and a history of participation

Said system would be expensive to check and prevent falsification, and easily subverted. You'd have people just passing by to get their stamps, and stuff like that.

I don't think that would be a huge problem, the goal of the system is to make sure people are actually interested enough to put some effort into voting and incentive political parties to actually interact with people and keep them on the loop.
About it being expensive, it's probably true, but i think it would be beneficial in the long run for a country to have better informed voters and more ways for people to get directly involved in politics

Besides, just by forcing people to go somewhere you won't actually teach them something. A significant majority wouldn't even listen, I'm afraid.

why would they go then? if they are interested in participating in the political process they'd likely enjoy these activities

Quote from: Askot Bokbondeler on August 25, 2013, 02:24:17 pm

the requirements should be pretty lax, like, go to any political event and get a stamp in your voter's card, get five stamps and you're ok to vote that year. political events should also be more frequent in a political system that demands aspiring voters to participate in them, and i can already easily find an event like this every week in the small city i live in

Like 10ebbor10 said, that would achieve nothing. If you force somebody to listen to something does not mean they actually pay attention.

then why bother going at all? it's not like voting is mandatory

Quote from: Askot Bokbondeler on August 25, 2013, 02:24:17 pm

i mainly think it is a façade not because it inevitably devolves into a two identical party system or because of the iron law of oligarchy, but mainly because elected governments rarely have real power and even if they represented the will of the electorate they still have to bend for the market and international politics.

That's not necessarily true. Governments have influence on the market and on international politics. Sure, influence varies a lot between countries, but that is what we try to balance out by things like the EU.

even the biggest governments are subjects to corporate overlords. if they can influence markets, it's usually for the benefit of those holding their balls

Quote from: Askot Bokbondeler on August 25, 2013, 02:24:17 pm

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 25, 2013, 02:05:49 pm

Quote from: Sir Winston Churchill

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

how nice, you know that quote! i love how this quote is used to excuse all the failings of "democracy". as if "democracy" was a sufficiently descriptive word to define a political system that is better than all the others that have been tried since the beginning of time, in every situation

Well, I think it is better. Sure, autocratic systems may be faster making decisions during a crisis, but it's a question of values. If you want your voice to be heard as an individual, there is no better system.

it's not about democracy vs autocracy though, it's about blind devotion and dogmatic defense of an imperfect system as the ultimate system. democracy, however it's defined by the status quo, is beyond criticism, because everything else sucks worse or is exactly the same.

If we're redefining democracy here, I'll suggest we apply the "one man, one vote" principle. I'll be the man and I'll have the vote, and I will take good care of y'all (or not). 

democracy is a very flexible word that rarely describes democracy. it usually describes a system where people get to vote for figureheads or one of two or three identical candidates, while not really having a right to complain because thats what they voted for. Democracy is a façade, and it was much better at it when it was capitalism vs. communism\democracy vs. autoracy. Now that it has established itself as the superior political system and it's status became entrenched and unquestionable it's stated goals of freedom and social justice have become more and more meaningless. so take democracy with a grain of salt, it is not a tried and true method to achieve utopia, but instead one that had it's potential to fuck up undermined by the pretension of moral superiority versus a rival that isn't there anymore.

Rather than limiting votes, it would be wiser to educate the entire population better.
(...)
It's easy to look at the 'cut away the filth and the rot' way, the difficult route however is the most reasonable: institute hours of forced education in things that bring out free-thinking.

i'd argue that

Democracy means you have a right to be ignorant, and everybody has a right to vote.

i think you should be able to chose between the two. voting is a right, not a duty, if you don't want to exercise that right you should be free to not do so

i'm also not defending "cutting away the ignorants", as in, ban stupid people from voting, instead i argue that we should demand that people who want to vote participate more actively in politics.

you make it sound like you're defending a minimally functional system, as if most conventional democracies aren't rampant with corruption and bias enforcing mechanics, and actually serve to manifest the will or the best interests of the people.
the problems you pose wouldn't be new to the system, and i can think of plenty of safeguards of the top of my head; many of them flawed sure, but i'm sure you yourselves could think up plenty of good ones too, and then we can compare notes and decide on a much better system than conventional democracy.

also scapulas. and humeruses and femurs don't have ulnas and fibulas, only the tibias and the radiuses.