The entire feminist narrative from the beginning is rotten and a context deaf misreprisentation of social conditions plus outright lies. Although I disagree with many ways the men’s rights advocates frame issues, their information on the history of voting rights in the western democracies are very well researched and eye opening. Worthwhile reading.
Once voting became the activity of atomized individuals the rest of the rottenness of the 20th century bad decision making followed.
25 comments
"atomized individuals?" Are those people who have been hit with the Aludium Q-37 Space Modulator? I think the word you're looking for is "autonomous."
Yes, a warm-body electorate can be trouble, especially once they discover they can vote themselves bread-and-circuses. Robert Heinlein suggested two alternatives -- 1) only veterans can vote (because they've shown they can put the good of the country ahead of their personal goals), and only after they're discharged. and 2) you have to solve a random quadratic equation in the voting booth before you're allowed to cast your vote. If you don't solve it correctly, lights and bells go off, and everyone in the polling place knows you couldn't do it.
Personally, I'd change the second one to requiring voters to make an accurate statement on the policies of one of the candidates. That way voters would have to actually study them, instead of relying on mudslinging and flashy commercials. How many people this November are going to be voting with one hand, while holding their nose with the other one?
Widespread male enfranchisement is not, in historical terms, that much earlier than female enfranchisement. You're actually attacking adult-inclusive democracy, not female-inclusive democracy.
so on the one hand. Yes, in the 18th and 19th centuries voting was reserved for property owners. So there were men and women who couldn't vote, and men and women who could. Granted married women I don't think could vote even if their husband could, but the laws regarding property, marriage and women then were a little stupid.
On the other hand. Rose seems to be implying everyone being able to vote is a bad thing. Democracy is one of those things the government gives its citizens because violent revolutions tend to be fatal for those in office. It's self preservation to grant legitimacy or at least the veneer of it to your authority.
Now, a well informed electorate is a good thing to have. But that's in no way something that correlates with an electorate of people who inherited or bought land.
@Darkevilme
There`s your problem, it is really a thing it does out of fear more than anything else. This why I believe society should be a volountary thing with it`s members agreeing to certain terms as to be best served as individuals and to progress our species, not be courted over all else for threat of violent aggresion. There is no logical argument why a non-educated, unemployed couch potato should have any say in deciding who`s gonna be in charge of environment, schooling system or even military. Why I even believe anyone under the confirmned title of a doctor of environmental sciences shouldn`t have any say in our policies regarding the subject, unless they`re prepared to produce all the privately done studies on the given specifics.
Voters make bad decisions (see: Nixon, Hoover, Grant, Buchanan, Dubbya, and this year Trump as a major party nominee). That's the risk of democracy. But, as the historical spread of my examples proves, reducing the number of people eligible to vote does NOT increase the quality of the result.
@dionysus:
The problem has less to do with whether there's a 'logical' way of doing it and more that who can you actually trust to setup the system impartially?
Power corrupts, power tempts, power subverts our best intentions.
The republican gerrymandering of voting districts springs to mind.
@Darkevilme
That's a great point.
@dionysus
At least ask for one before you assume and yes there is, it`s called universal education system and it`s not supposed to be perfect only as good as we can make it. Also this has nothing to do with american civil war, as you should yourself know before trying to reduce my position to bigotry and gain, how does a baffoon in a privately funded school dismantle such an idea. So called ivy league under such system would need to obviously go full public to uphold their accreditation with no playing firsties.
Now you give me a logical reason beside the angry peasant`s pointy, flaming stick, why should an uneducated imbecille have a say in how we ordain our environmental policy besides yelps of "I don`t wanna use energy efficient bulbs".
@Darkevilme
But then should we trust others based exclusively on their popularity? Why indeed trust somebody to represent the best intentionts for our people? I don`t believe the saying about corrupting power can and should be used ultimately like it`s some universal principle(it`s a dangerous abuse of what is basicaly a mental shortcut). Power merely presentsone with atestof character, one thathas to be overcome like any other.
"The entire feminist narrative from the beginning is rotten and a context deaf misreprisentation of social conditions plus outright lies."
"Once voting became the activity of atomized individuals the rest of the rottenness of the 20th century bad decision making followed."
image
image
image
@Skidie:
It's not the popularity element exactly. It goes back to the whole revolution thing. A government with the consent of the governed cause when you don't have their consent the governed get uppity. And people think that the best way to do that in this era is to have them vote the government into office.
People, even stupid people, need to believe they have a say in whether they support their government or not in a way that does not involve violence. Otherwise it's almost inevitable that eventually they will resort to violence due to not having been provided other means.
and the difference I think regarding the rules vs a ruler is under democracy is you can kick the ruler out if you disapprove of him. What means do the unsatisfied have to change your rules you established regarding voting if they dislike them?
Actually the very basis of how this agreement is made I consider outdated and wrong.
The idea I`d subscribe to, describes society as a volountary participation idea and in that vein there might as well exist an arrangement in which all prospective citizenry oblige themselves as part of the deal to the predetermined setup such as one where only those of sufficient scientific degree(denoting ideally a measure of understanding of the subject at hand) in a given subjects would get to vote on issues regarding those.
This is radically diffrent from what our species mostly tried and I believe would need to be tried one city/private island/platform/such place at a time, obviously I couldn`t consider it the panaceus way of making everyone happy. On the proposed scale the idea is that if you`re unhappy, you don`t get to protest in an emotional way(say that the reson for the protest would not be grounded in any real need of improvement but would be purely emotional). Assuming you cannot convince others on a rational grounds, it`s your time to leave and probably get a ticket and some set amount of resources before your departure.
@Skidie:
Okay it makes more sense now. The issue we have is geographically everyone is in a state running under the old model, and one of these states could not transition into your new paradigm. Where I suppose establishing one somewhere else with immigration based on accepting the code of conduct is a different way of getting the consent of the governed.
So I look forward to hearing about your meritocratic voting franchise moon base in the next 40 years.
a context deaf misreprisentation of social conditions plus outright lies.
So you're telling me that women were never treated as property, could always own land, and always had the right to vote?
Once voting became the activity of atomized individuals the rest of the rottenness of the 20th century bad decision making followed.
That's because the X-Men are superheroes, not statesmen. (Statespeople? Statespersons?)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
