• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An Alarming Observation

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I am a rock-solid believer in democracy, that every citizen has the right (I would prefer the responsibility) to vote, and that voting ought to be made as hassle-free as humanly possible. All of these things are true in Canada, where I live.

And when the vote doesn't turn out the way that I would have liked, then I also believe it is my responsibility to get on with dealing with the new -- legitimate -- government, whether it was my choice or not. There is always, after all, another vote coming up.

Absolutely spot on post. Keep 'em coming!
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Do you agree that women and black citizens should be allowed to vote?
Certainly. But remember in the past it wasn't so much race and gender as it was being a landowner.

You can be a white male and cannot vote if you had no land of your own.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Who, in your view, confers the privilege of a vote on a citizen, and on what grounds?
I like the idea of land ownership as the founding fathers structured it. I'm sure they had their reasons for it.

None of us actually votes anyways save for state and local elections. The privilege to vote on the federal level soley belongs to electoral voters.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The guy on the video has not been paying attention, if all this surprises him. Progressives have been pointing this out for decades.

The US is already an oligarchy. Yes, the trappings of democracy still remain, but the actual 'will of the people' is no longer translated into law.

In ~1950, polls showed the preferences of the people became law >50%of the time. Today, studies like Gilens' and Page's indicate that the preferences of the average, middle class American have virtually no affect on policy, while the concerns of the 1% almost invariably become law.
Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
I agree that the democracy we think of, and that the video is claiming is in danger, has already been lost. And quite a while ago. The mechanisms of it are still in place, however, even though they have been effectively usurped by the legalization of bribery within our government. But effective democracy could be revived if we had the will to fight for that outcome (currently we do not).

I also think the 'trumpsters' have realized this and understand full well that democracy has failed them. Which is why they feel no particular equivocation when they are being accused of "destroying democracy". Their thought would be, "what democracy"? Systemic corruption is not democracy, and it doesn't deserve to be respected or maintained just because it calls itself a democracy.

And they're right.

Unfortunately, they are wrong in almost every other respect. They are wrong to blame the failure and subjugation of democracy on the 'intelligencia', and on 'liberals', and on the rejection of Christianity. And on minorities and illegal aliens. The real culprits are using their ignorance, fear, and bigotry to get them to turn against their own government, and their fellow citizens, to further their own agenda. And thereby stopping any effective attempt at cleaning up the corruption of government before it can even start.
 
Last edited:

pearl

Well-Known Member
My guess is they will go even farther to hold onto power and the America we all know will collapse as a democracy

The stage is already set as Trump is now fundraising for 2024. Democracy remains an experiment, and a growing number of those who think it not possible and dismiss it, and those who are oblivious to the possibility.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
But would it be so bad if a weighting system applied as to how votes counted, and based on some form of knowledge/ability however this might be construed?
Yes, I do believe that would be bad. It is a simple truth that not every human is born with either the same capacity or the same opportunity to learn and be educated. And yet, every human is born with the same right to try to live their life as best they can -- and that includes participating in how they are governed.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Thinking of Franco's support from the Catholic Church, Hitler's support from the German Lutheran Church, Mussolini's support from the Catholic Church, then there are Central and South American fascists supported by the Catholic Church.
In most of these instances it was not "support" so much as it was acquiescing to the political circumstances of the times.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Half that stuff can apply to the left as well.
The Left is absolutely not the ones suppressing voter rights or introducing bills to do expressly that. In very racist and targeting ways, I might add. I don't care what side of the spectrum you're on (though it's fairly clear), this is flatly a stupid stance in this regard. This is apples to ham.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I like the idea of land ownership as the founding fathers structured it. I'm sure they had their reasons for it.
So you think people who rent ought not to have the right to vote? Would that include a significant number of people living in large cities? What about the adult children of landowners who, while daddy is alive and they haven't yet inherited, would have no right to vote? Nice one. Who wants a dependent lout voting, eh?

And land, being a finite commodity in a country with finite borders, when it is all owned and there is no more to be purchased, would you suggest everyone born after that be disenfranchised until some landowner -- and his children -- dies so that somebody else can get a turn to buy in?

Gotta say, you got some strange notions.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I like the idea of land ownership as the founding fathers structured it. I'm sure they had their reasons for it.

None of us actually votes anyways save for state and local elections. The privilege to vote on the federal level soley belongs to electoral voters.
My question was who, in your opinion, decides who gets the "privilege" of voting and on what grounds. I wasn't asking what you, hypothetically, might like to see.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Yes, I do believe that would be bad. It is a simple truth that not every human is born with either the same capacity or the same opportunity to learn and be educated. And yet, every human is born with the same right to try to live their life as best they can -- and that includes participating in how they are governed.
But there is no level playing field as it is, since those in power or more wealthy have the ability to push their views or warp the information that people get. So why would it be so harmful to have some kind of system that ensured a more even distribution of knowledge - and appropriate rewards (weighting as to votes) when people demonstrated such? I'd just like to see this tested out, even if it might not be practicable.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
But there is no level playing field as it is, since those in power or more wealthy have the ability to push their views or warp the information that people get. So why would it be so harmful to have some kind of system that ensured a more even distribution of knowledge - and appropriate rewards (weighting as to votes) when people demonstrated such? I'd just like to see this tested out, even if it might not be practicable.
The way to deal with that is not to disenfranchise anyone -- just get in place some decent laws around election financing. Things like putting a cap on individual donations to parties (same cap for all, no matter how rich they are). That alone would deeply curtail the ability of the super-rich to "buy" candidates. Then, candidates don't need to feel so deeply indebted, and can't be bribed by promises of future contributions.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
The way to deal with that is not to disenfranchise anyone -- just get in place some decent laws around election financing. Things like putting a cap on individual donations to parties (same cap for all, no matter how rich they are). That alone would deeply curtail the ability of the super-rich to "buy" candidates. Then, candidates don't need to feel so deeply indebted, and can't be bribed by promises of future contributions.

Someone once proposed a draft of politicians from the general populous rather than elections. It would make it harder for corporations to influence who gets in office.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
The way to deal with that is not to disenfranchise anyone -- just get in place some decent laws around election financing. Things like putting a cap on individual donations to parties (same cap for all, no matter how rich they are). That alone would deeply curtail the ability of the super-rich to "buy" candidates. Then, candidates don't need to feel so deeply indebted, and can't be bribed by promises of future contributions.
But in the USA it has gone way beyond that already, and in many other countries too where the media is in the hands of individuals with political views to push. I just can't see how one gets around this unless some other system comes in. The Brexit thing came about basically from a distorted push from one side, even when those more knowledgeable recommended staying in.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
How very leftist.
You might try and tell that to many prominent Republicans who have either left the party or feel disgusted with the racist, xenophobic, dishonest, and/or depraved party that they used to love and support. Let me recommend paying attention to George Will, George Bush, Michael Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, former RNC chairman Michael Steele, etc.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You might try and tell that to many prominent Republicans who have either left the party or feel disgusted with the racist, xenophobic, dishonest, and/or depraved party that they used to love and support. Let me recommend paying attention to George Will, George Bush, Michael Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, former RNC chairman Michael Steele, etc.
And you actually think the left is void of that themselves?

I will give you one thing, the left does a much better job at hiding it then the right does.
 
Top