41 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

Nope, you could have a Senate appointed by the President.

[Shokkou]

[Manoka]

Nope, you could have a Senate appointed by the President.

The senate is still intended to represent the people. xP

[Thrash]

Nope, you could have a Senate appointed by the President.

The senate is still intended to represent the people. xP
 
 

In what world do you live in? Please tell me how the Senate even remotely considers the thoughts of it's people. If that were the case then we would never heard about candidates that are say pro-choice or pro-life or against amnesty or for it, because their personal views wouldn't matter since they're supposed to represent their people.

WHAT YOU THINK OR WANT DOES NOT MATTER. IT HAS NOT MATTERED FOR A REAL LONG TIME.

Sure, in the 1800's this might have been okay with the politicians actually being part of their community and not taking trips all over the world or lobbying for money for their re-election rather then taking the time to sit and talk with the people.

[Shokkou]

 

Nope, you could have a Senate appointed by the President.

The senate is still intended to represent the people. xP
 
 

 

In what world do you live in? Please tell me how the Senate even remotely considers the thoughts of it's people. If that were the case then we would never heard about candidates that are say pro-choice or pro-life or against amnesty or for it, because their personal views wouldn't matter since they're supposed to represent their people.

WHAT YOU THINK OR WANT DOES NOT MATTER. IT HAS NOT MATTERED FOR A REAL LONG TIME.

Sure, in the 1800's this might have been okay with the politicians actually being part of their community and not taking trips all over the world or lobbying for money for their re-election rather then taking the time to sit and talk with the people.

As much as I hate to do this, Thrash, I'm going to have to direct you to the words "intended to" because, and again I can't believe I'm saying this, what Manoka is saying is factually correct.

[Manoka]

 

Nope, you could have a Senate appointed by the President.

The senate is still intended to represent the people. xP
 
 

 

In what world do you live in? Please tell me how the Senate even remotely considers the thoughts of it's people. If that were the case then we would never heard about candidates that are say pro-choice or pro-life or against amnesty or for it, because their personal views wouldn't matter since they're supposed to represent their people.

WHAT YOU THINK OR WANT DOES NOT MATTER. IT HAS NOT MATTERED FOR A REAL LONG TIME.

Sure, in the 1800's this might have been okay with the politicians actually being part of their community and not taking trips all over the world or lobbying for money for their re-election rather then taking the time to sit and talk with the people.

Well, a lot of politicians back in the day traveled a lot, Benjamin Franklin was especially useful due to his ability to persuade the French to support us. 

 

You also have to remember that slavery used to exist, and that was you know, not a good thing for the people. 

 

The Senate members need to get elected, so they need to appeal to the people. They represent the people's issues on the matter, and get elected by saying beforehand which issues they'd represent, to make themselves appear favorable to the people. If the people's will had no bearing on if they were elected or not we wouldn't know what their opinion's were on certain things, we wouldn't see campaigns by them in the first place, since it wouldn't matter. That's kind of the anti-thesis of what you're suggesting; it's one thing to say that they're corrupt, it's another to say because they campaign to the people to show they possess the same opinions, so you know you have a politician you can trust, that the people's will doesn't matter. 

 

In a representative democracy, you have to make it clear that you'll represent the people, by and large, which is what they do. Politicians that stick to their principles either step down or try to convince others that their ideas are best to get elected; usually, people want results in addition to representation, so you have to come up with an idea you think will work and then convince everyone it's the right thing to do.

[Thrash]

I guess I missed the "intended" part.

Let's look at a scenario though:

So, lets say my local Representative (I use this to narrow it down) is a full Democrat (elected by our "system") and I'm a full blown Republican. I will not agree with this elected official on any issues nor will they with me. My voice means nothing for 2 years, based on 5% on the population choosing who gets to sit there and be the "voice" of the people. Suppose a Democrat keeps winning this position, do I have to move to have my voice matter?

Something needs to change with the election system. It is how many years old now? Things are how different now?

[Manoka]

I guess I missed the "intended" part.

Let's look at a scenario though:

So, lets say my local Representative (I use this to narrow it down) is a full Democrat (elected by our "system") and I'm a full blown Republican. I will not agree with this elected official on any issues nor will they with me. My voice means nothing for 2 years, based on 5% on the population choosing who gets to sit there and be the "voice" of the people. Suppose a Democrat keeps winning this position, do I have to move to have my voice matter?

Something needs to change with the election system. It is how many years old now? Things are how different now?

Say we have a direct democracy. 5% of the population outvotes the other group, so 55 to 45 decide to implement a gun ban, or mandatory gay sex law. The law is passed by majority, instead. 

 

Does that change anything? When the desire is for more independence something can be done, but if the desire is for your side to win, you will only achieve that by convincing the people you are right and to vote accordingly. Or everyone with the same ideas moving to the same part of the country and implementing their ideas there.

 

 

I'd be for it. 

 

Just don't commandeer Texas. 

 

 

The solution, in reality, is to convince the morons they are wrong, which while hard enough on it's own, unfortunately requires an even harder task, which is convincing them to listen, first. 

[Thrash]

Say we have a direct democracy. 5% of the population outvotes the other group, so 55 to 45 decide to implement a gun ban, or mandatory gay sex law. The law is passed by majority, instead. 

I'd be fine with that.

[Manoka]

Say we have a direct democracy. 5% of the population outvotes the other group, so 55 to 45 decide to implement a gun ban, or mandatory gay sex law. The law is passed by majority, instead. 

I'd be fine with that.

But what would change? xP

[Redezra]

 

 

Nope, you could have a Senate appointed by the President.

The senate is still intended to represent the people. xP
 
 

 

In what world do you live in? Please tell me how the Senate even remotely considers the thoughts of it's people. If that were the case then we would never heard about candidates that are say pro-choice or pro-life or against amnesty or for it, because their personal views wouldn't matter since they're supposed to represent their people.

WHAT YOU THINK OR WANT DOES NOT MATTER. IT HAS NOT MATTERED FOR A REAL LONG TIME.

Sure, in the 1800's this might have been okay with the politicians actually being part of their community and not taking trips all over the world or lobbying for money for their re-election rather then taking the time to sit and talk with the people.

As much as I hate to do this, Thrash, I'm going to have to direct you to the words "intended to" because, and again I can't believe I'm saying this, what Manoka is saying is factually correct.

 

*puts one finger up*

 

Intended does not mean actually does. Democratic systems actually specify how decisions are made, and attaching that to representation, simply through syntactic definition, ensures that it represents the people.

If the people do not elect their representitives democratically, then it cannot be democratic representation.

Meanwhile, if the "representatives" are not democratically elected in a republic, who cares!? It's still a republic

[Shokkou]

 

 

 

Nope, you could have a Senate appointed by the President.

The senate is still intended to represent the people. xP
 
 

 

In what world do you live in? Please tell me how the Senate even remotely considers the thoughts of it's people. If that were the case then we would never heard about candidates that are say pro-choice or pro-life or against amnesty or for it, because their personal views wouldn't matter since they're supposed to represent their people.

WHAT YOU THINK OR WANT DOES NOT MATTER. IT HAS NOT MATTERED FOR A REAL LONG TIME.

Sure, in the 1800's this might have been okay with the politicians actually being part of their community and not taking trips all over the world or lobbying for money for their re-election rather then taking the time to sit and talk with the people.

As much as I hate to do this, Thrash, I'm going to have to direct you to the words "intended to" because, and again I can't believe I'm saying this, what Manoka is saying is factually correct.

 

*puts one finger up*

 

Intended does not mean actually does.

Thrash already covered that and, as I pointed out, Manoka did not say it did. Thanks for playing though.

 

P.S. You people are doing this on purpose, aren't you? Artificially engineering a situation where my pedantic nature drives me to, reluctantly, defend Manoka.

[Redezra]

Yes.

 

And it's hillarious.

[Shokkou]

Yes.

 

And it's hillarious.

Well congratulations! You got me to defend Manoka. Now what's the next step of your master plan?

[Manoka]

 

 

 

Nope, you could have a Senate appointed by the President.

The senate is still intended to represent the people. xP
 
 

 

In what world do you live in? Please tell me how the Senate even remotely considers the thoughts of it's people. If that were the case then we would never heard about candidates that are say pro-choice or pro-life or against amnesty or for it, because their personal views wouldn't matter since they're supposed to represent their people.

WHAT YOU THINK OR WANT DOES NOT MATTER. IT HAS NOT MATTERED FOR A REAL LONG TIME.

Sure, in the 1800's this might have been okay with the politicians actually being part of their community and not taking trips all over the world or lobbying for money for their re-election rather then taking the time to sit and talk with the people.

As much as I hate to do this, Thrash, I'm going to have to direct you to the words "intended to" because, and again I can't believe I'm saying this, what Manoka is saying is factually correct.

 

*puts one finger up*

 

Intended does not mean actually does. Democratic systems actually specify how decisions are made, and attaching that to representation, simply through syntactic definition, ensures that it represents the people.

If the people do not elect their representitives democratically, then it cannot be democratic representation.

Meanwhile, if the "representatives" are not democratically elected in a republic, who cares!? It's still a republic

A republic is just a form of representative democracy, at least according to the modern definitions. Like, we can call socialism or communism anything we want, but the generally accepted definitions from the experts in political theory say what a republic is supposed to be, what socialism is supposed to be etc., but anyone can commandeer the terms for their own use, since they are just names.

[Thrash]

Say we have a direct democracy. 5% of the population outvotes the other group, so 55 to 45 decide to implement a gun ban, or mandatory gay sex law. The law is passed by majority, instead. 

I'd be fine with that.
 
 

But what would change? xP
 
 
 

Your vote would matter.

[Manoka]

 

 

Say we have a direct democracy. 5% of the population outvotes the other group, so 55 to 45 decide to implement a gun ban, or mandatory gay sex law. The law is passed by majority, instead. 

I'd be fine with that.
 

 

But what would change? xP
 
 

 

It's totally different. You're bringing in voting on laws, I was only talking about voting for politicians.

If a majority votes democrat, doesn't that keep things the same way? xP

[Thrash]

Then I know it's time to move the hell out of the country, because there's no chance, so it serves a purpose, like I said.

[Manoka]

Well, we could just like, idk, try to edumacate people that they are wrong about things?

 

And how would we all vote in singular laws? I mean there are so many thousands of them, people don't even turn up to vote for the president more than like 60% of the time, how could we possibly hope for them to vote on individual laws? If it was done via the internet it would be too easy to hack, and especially too easy to use voters who rarely vote to boost their numbers, so it would probably be less useful. 

[Redezra]

Yes.

 

And it's hillarious.

Well congratulations! You got me to defend Manoka. Now what's the next step of your master plan?

To tickle you. With no survivors!~

<sudden music change, as masked men run into the room to mercilessly tickle Shokkou>