US elections 08

[linux_user]

Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire

Also, New Hampshire District Admits Ron Paul Vote Skew


I rest my case....

Unfortunately, it's all too easy!!

Open your eyes, people....

[krazy kaju]

Originally Posted by Fido

There ain't a girl that can't be kissed nor a game that can't be fixed. Considering the time, the distance, the money, and the small numbers of representatives compared to the growing population; what makes you feel you are working with a clean deck? Sure, some feed back, hard copies, vote counters might be needed for verification. The best deal would be democracy, where no man is hindered in the pursuit of his own objectives so long as he injures no one, and no one votes on any affair not his own. Won't you admit that national parties lead to the trading of sectional interests, and individual rights, for national power?

You do realize that answering in a cryptic fashion while totally avoiding the question posed and providing your own does not actually prove anything, right?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

You do realize that answering in a cryptic fashion while totally avoiding the question posed and providing your own does not actually prove anything, right?

Perhaps I see the problem differently. There is corruption throughout our country. Do you guess it stops at the top and does not reach the common man? We can hardly trust the government while we cannot trust our selves and our neighbors. So we will not have direct democracy until we can be sure no one will mess with us in the conduct of own affairs with out damned good cause, and no one will vote on nothing not concerning him. I am not trying to be cryptic. It is usually just as simple as I can say it.

[krazy kaju]

Originally Posted by Fido

When I can talk to you when you might be on the other side of the earth there is no reason we can't have some kind of direct democracy. If nothing else, we should get a vote on what our so called leaders decide.

Followed by...

Perhaps I see the problem differently. There is corruption throughout our country. Do you guess it stops at the top and does not reach the common man? We can hardly trust the government while we cannot trust our selves and our neighbors. So we will not have direct democracy until we can be sure no one will mess with us in the conduct of own affairs with out damned good cause, and no one will vote on nothing not concerning him. I am not trying to be cryptic. It is usually just as simple as I can say it.

In your first post you state we need direct democracy NOW and in another you say we need when the technology is available... or at least that's what you seem to be saying.

Isn't this contradictory?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

Followed by...



In your first post you state we need direct democracy NOW and in another you say we need when the technology is available... or at least that's what you seem to be saying.

Isn't this contradictory?

Well the technology is available. You have to remember that when our government was established not one major river in america was bridged, yet we have less representatives per person than we began with. They left a loop hole, and the lawyers soon took advantage of it. And something other, parties, which I have seen no blessing for in the constitution, which were a holdover from England tend to make all issues national issues. Until we have two things, a direct democracy will not be possible. We must be able to check our vote with a hard counting method, and voting ought to be limited to those issues that affect the voter. Not all issues are national issues. All issues are in some senses local issues. There is no reason for me to vote on issues affecting only you, nor for you voting on issues affecting only me. The issue is clear in gun rights and in privacy rights. Why are non gun owners able to vote to limit the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns? And, why are men allowed to vote on what a women does with her body? Would either of these issues even be issues if political parties have nothing to give to one side but the ability to take rights from the other side on the basis of a majority vote? Democratic government misses the point of democracy; which is defense. Since we do not have democracy it is the people who must always be hopping around trying to protect rights they only have in short supply, while government officials hide behind the very rights they are sworn to protect. The whole situation is obscene.

[krazy kaju]

So you're saying that we should implement direct democracy via electronics now, as long as we can have methods of confirming who a person voted for, that the person voted, etc., am I correct?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

So you're saying that we should implement direct democracy via electronics now, as long as we can have methods of confirming who a person voted for, that the person voted, etc., am I correct?

And then there should be the question of: If we can vote on any issue why do we need to elect people to vote for us? I can imagine that people might be nominated to bring questions before the people, but the people could do this as well. The thing is, that people expect something from their government, and I think it is what they generally expect from all forms, and that is resistence to change, which is great if you have the situation as you want it, which is what we started with for example. But when government does not kick when you kick it, when you do not get from government what you feel you pay for, when you are left out of the process, and given what you don't need in exhange for what you need and do not get then the form has outlived its usefulness. Aristotle says Good is the aim of government so you better practice your dodging. I mean, when government no longer supplies the good it promises, it is time to reconstitute it. The thing is that no government should have such resistence to the will of the population that it cannot be changed. Now I state the obvious to say we could have a direct democracy. The next question is how much authority such a government would have, and how much would be necessary. Ultimately, I will not decide what ever form people might choose for themselves, and it is best if they are not presented with much in ideals. I think it would be great if we were not locked into an unresponsive government at this point in the life of the nation, and yet I see it as inevitable given our start. I think there is common agreement that government as it stands does not give enough. Isn't it time to start thinking of after the revolution, and what can we, who consider ourselves philosophers, offer to people in the way of advice in the way of just and effective government?