I've been noticing lately that most people seem to have some crazy radical views, even if they are very conservative. After hearing some of my friends talk about some of theirs, I was wondering what other insane ideas are out there.
Here is one of mine as to how we should elect presidents within the US:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.
The test questions would be along the lines of "What is your view on healthcare?" and the response would be almost a quote from the candidate. Basically, if you don't know what you're voting for, your vote only gets counted based on the things that you know. This way, we'll have less idiots voting for some candidate just because he/she is part of their party.
The Neon Peon wrote:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
I like this idea, now that we have the technology to pull it off. However, I very much fear for the use of the same technology in elections, given how easily they can be corrupted with the corruption remaining VERY difficult to detect.
The Neon Peon wrote:2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.
I definitely don't care for this one. Elitism sucks.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
The Neon Peon wrote:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
I like this idea, now that we have the technology to pull it off. However, I very much fear for the use of the same technology in elections, given how easily they can be corrupted with the corruption remaining VERY difficult to detect.
The Neon Peon wrote:2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.
I definitely don't care for this one. Elitism sucks.
Woodruff, you give the appearance of being elitist with some of your posts.
The Neon Peon wrote:I've been noticing lately that most people seem to have some crazy radical views, even if they are very conservative. After hearing some of my friends talk about some of theirs, I was wondering what other insane ideas are out there.
Here is one of mine as to how we should elect presidents within the US:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.
The test questions would be along the lines of "What is your view on healthcare?" and the response would be almost a quote from the candidate. Basically, if you don't know what you're voting for, your vote only gets counted based on the things that you know. This way, we'll have less idiots voting for some candidate just because he/she is part of their party.
jesus, there is nothing more singularly nauseating than advocating for the end of universal suffrage. i see people say shit like this all the fucking time and it never fails to turn my stomach.
The Neon Peon wrote:I've been noticing lately that most people seem to have some crazy radical views, even if they are very conservative. After hearing some of my friends talk about some of theirs, I was wondering what other insane ideas are out there.
Here is one of mine as to how we should elect presidents within the US:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.
The test questions would be along the lines of "What is your view on healthcare?" and the response would be almost a quote from the candidate. Basically, if you don't know what you're voting for, your vote only gets counted based on the things that you know. This way, we'll have less idiots voting for some candidate just because he/she is part of their party.
the potential for corruption in the questioning on the test itself, not to mention the no doubt endless litigation of any question deemed inappropriate or offensive.
The Neon Peon wrote:I've been noticing lately that most people seem to have some crazy radical views, even if they are very conservative. After hearing some of my friends talk about some of theirs, I was wondering what other insane ideas are out there.
Here is one of mine as to how we should elect presidents within the US:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.
The test questions would be along the lines of "What is your view on healthcare?" and the response would be almost a quote from the candidate. Basically, if you don't know what you're voting for, your vote only gets counted based on the things that you know. This way, we'll have less idiots voting for some candidate just because he/she is part of their party.
jesus, there is nothing more singularly nauseating than advocating for the end of universal suffrage. i see people say shit like this all the fucking time and it never fails to turn my stomach.
The DIRECT Democracy thing makes sense, and I think that would be a great way to go...but I feel like that someone would be able to actually "hack" it if they REALLY wanted to, fucking up our country.
As entertaining of an idea as the 20 question test sounds, it is however quite illegal. In its core however it is a good idea. Maybe a data sheet could be provided at the poll booths that summed up a politicians views. Politics isn't my thing feel free to chew up the idea if you feel it to be necessary.
Edoc'sil
Commander9 wrote:Trust Edoc, as I know he's VERY good.
Ban Political Parties. Give states more individuality. If you don't like what one state is doing, move. There are 50 states. I'm sure there's one that will suit your own personal selfish desires.
The Neon Peon wrote:I've been noticing lately that most people seem to have some crazy radical views, even if they are very conservative. After hearing some of my friends talk about some of theirs, I was wondering what other insane ideas are out there.
Here is one of mine as to how we should elect presidents within the US:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.
The test questions would be along the lines of "What is your view on healthcare?" and the response would be almost a quote from the candidate. Basically, if you don't know what you're voting for, your vote only gets counted based on the things that you know. This way, we'll have less idiots voting for some candidate just because he/she is part of their party.
1. That would be a democracy, not a republic, which is what we are...for a reason.
2. That is the dumbest thing I've heard yet. IN one respect you want to give "power to the people (in all languages for fcks sake)" and in another you want to limit, according to your views, who's votes count to what. LMFAO, really? Seems like 2, is sort of making another 1, just dumber.
High: 08 Dec. 08; Pts: 3141 Ranking: 57 Rank: Brig
Lordhaha is my hero too.
The Neon Peon wrote:I've been noticing lately that most people seem to have some crazy radical views, even if they are very conservative. After hearing some of my friends talk about some of theirs, I was wondering what other insane ideas are out there.
Here is one of mine as to how we should elect presidents within the US:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.
The test questions would be along the lines of "What is your view on healthcare?" and the response would be almost a quote from the candidate. Basically, if you don't know what you're voting for, your vote only gets counted based on the things that you know. This way, we'll have less idiots voting for some candidate just because he/she is part of their party.
1. That would be a democracy, not a republic, which is what we are...for a reason.
rockfist wrote:Translation: Sultan is not for anything that would lead to more informed voters deciding our elections.
i'd bring up jim crow at this point but i guess you would love to see that make a comeback too, you dumb goosestepping cracker
he called you a cracker thats as bad a crop hoeing white man slave nigger m8 take offense so we can get him banned finally
Hello THORNHEART,
You have received a formal disciplinary warning.
THORNHEART has earned himself a 24 hour Forum ban..
1st user that hasn't taken the C&A Report Abuse / Spurious Reports Warning we give seriously.
The Neon Peon wrote:I've been noticing lately that most people seem to have some crazy radical views, even if they are very conservative. After hearing some of my friends talk about some of theirs, I was wondering what other insane ideas are out there.
Here is one of mine as to how we should elect presidents within the US:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.
The test questions would be along the lines of "What is your view on healthcare?" and the response would be almost a quote from the candidate. Basically, if you don't know what you're voting for, your vote only gets counted based on the things that you know. This way, we'll have less idiots voting for some candidate just because he/she is part of their party.
1. That would be a democracy, not a republic, which is what we are...for a reason.
For what reason, then? Elitism?
It's for the states. Aside from it being silly to talk about the US being a republic and not a democracy (it's simply both), the particular form of government the US has is rather good for making sure presidents have to appeal to both citydwellers and farmers alike. States with a low population still have a say in what happens.
Now, that doesn't mean it's a good system or anything. It's just a reason for it existing.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
The Neon Peon wrote:
2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.
Tempting view but incredibly dumb. Your vote counting as 3/5th of a normal vote brings up some parrallels to a time when that was the case for a certain group of people.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
How about, "you have to pay taxes, in order to have a say in what the government does"? Why should my vote be the same as Warren Buffet's, (who would have a lot more to lose if taxes went up) or a person that has lived in public housing all their life and has only taken from the producing class?
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
As for all the people that quoted the last part of my post, two things.
1. I asked primarily if anyone else had any wacked out views, not comments on my own.
2. What exactly is the problem with it? I didn't notice much of an explanation from any of you. As far as I see it, if someone walks into the polls with no clue what either candidate believes, why should they have as much of an impact as the person next to him who actually knows what he's voting for?
P.S. I would really like either that question I asked in this post answered, or an explanation as to how the method I stated in the first post not keep the uninformed from running our country.
- I don't need a lesson about how a test like that could be corrupted so that one party wins. I know.
I've told this story here before, but it is relevant again.
My Dad once said "prople shouldn't be allowed to vote unless they know what they're talking about".
On the face of it, this argument has some merit. There are certainly people who, when I think "they r allowed to vote", it worries me.
However, the test which he would have applied was this "anyone who would vote Tory should have their vote taken away." Ultimately, although any test might not be so blatant, it is likely to be biased.
The Neon Peon wrote:As for all the people that quoted the last part of my post, two things.
1. I asked primarily if anyone else had any wacked out views, not comments on my own.
2. What exactly is the problem with it? I didn't notice much of an explanation from any of you. As far as I see it, if someone walks into the polls with no clue what either candidate believes, why should they have as much of an impact as the person next to him who actually knows what he's voting for?
P.S. I would really like either that question I asked in this post answered, or an explanation as to how the method I stated in the first post not keep the uninformed from running our country.
- I don't need a lesson about how a test like that could be corrupted so that one party wins. I know.
Because telling people that their vote is only worth 3/5ths of a normal vote is unconstitutional, discriminatory and just flat out wrong.
It's also an incredibly bad idea.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
jonesthecurl wrote:Ultimately, although any test might not be so blatant, it is likely to be biased.
Understandable.
Snorri1234 wrote:Because telling people that their vote is only worth 3/5ths of a normal vote is unconstitutional, discriminatory and just flat out wrong.
I generally have a very hard time telling if you are being sarcastic or not. If not, how is it discriminatory in any way?
Here's how I would reform the elections to the federal government. As a preliminary, know that the constitution nowhere gives people the right to vote for the president. It gives the right to vote, but the selection of the president is left up to the states.
1) I would pass the Congressional Apportionment Amendment (the first of the 12 articles introduced by James Madison, ten of which became our Bill of Rights), which states that each congressman represents no more than 30,000 people (as opposed to the 700,000 average we currently have). This would significantly dilute the power of congressman, make it easier for "common" people to get elected, and would reduce the relative power of the smaller states in the electoral college.
2) I would repeal the 17th amendment and have senators picked by the state governments rather than directly elected by the people. This would return us to a system where the congressmen represent the people at large and the senators represent the interests of the states. Right now they're essentially "super congressmen," and I'm not sure that they serve their intended purpose.
3) I would require that all congressional districts be drawn based solely off of geographical features and population density. They should be drawn via a computer program that does not receive information regarding race, income, or political affiliation. Let's stop letting congressmen draw their own districts to ensure their re-election and cut out the partisan gerrymandering of districts to give one political party continued domination of a given state.
4) (The most controversial proposal.) I would like to remove the direct vote for president altogether. Instead of electing a president, each congressional district would select an elector to represent them. Ideally this would be a person well known in the community, and the citizens running for this position would present their ideas and views to the people who would decide on one that they feel could pick a suitable president. No one will have declared their candidacy for president at this time, so electors would not campaign based on their preference for a specific candidate, but only for their views on various issues and on what qualities they would most look for in a president. The governors of the states would also each nominate two additional electors (who would be voted on by the state legislatures). The full complement of electors (with proposal 1 in place, this group would number around 1200-1300) would hold a convention in Washington DC at which time all nominees for president would announce their candidacy. The electors would have the entire week to interview and question each of the candidates in detail and would vote at the end of the week to select our next president. This would eliminate many of the problems with campaign financing and the role of special interest groups. It would also eliminate the "dirty tricks" and "October surprises" that have become so common in our presidential elections. Furthermore, it would force the candidates to have real positions and be able to articulate and defend them under real questioning rather than in the 90-second soundbites they currently give us at the "debates." Perhaps to ease some fears about "unvetted" candidates, they would announce their candidacy after all the electors had been selected but some month or two before the convention in order to give the media and other groups time to dig into the candidates backgrounds and prepare reports which would be made available to the electors.
I know most of these proposals are rather far-fetched and probably pretty idealistic. My guess is that 3 and 1 would be the most popular, but that 2 and 4 have almost no chance of ever being enacted. But you asked for crazy views, and I'm just giving you my "in a perfect world" ideas.
