The Glade 4.0

No, its Democrat Party. The party of Democrats.

Republican party. The party of Republicans.

I don't know how you don't get this by now.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

How do you square that assessment with the massive increase in liberty for black people, minorities in general, women, non-landholders, etc.?

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Black people did not vote themselves the right to vote, nor did women, nor did non-land holders.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

None of these things are dependent upon increased franchise. Want to provide causal justifications for your bare assertion they are?

_________________

*sigh*

Great proofreading there, champ.

You are one to talk, Mr. Can't Spell Worth a Damn!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

Sorry my proposal is not a direct Democracy, it is still a republic, it retains the electoral college, it affirms the the votes of the districts by populace then confirms the populace vote of the state. It adds more power to districts then the current leaning of winner take all for a state. The fly over states start to become a hell of a lot more important, along with the outlying districts.
The biggest battle here is gerrymandering of districts to avoid bias, and the only way I see to do that is based on census counts only with no political affiliation information allowed Probably best done by computer modeling.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

Why should any living person have a say? Why should the people who live off the government and do not contribute to the system have a say?

Why should the person who does not own land have a say? Owning land gives you a vested interest in the country doing well. Owning a business gives you a vested interest in the countries economy doing well.

Hell for that matter, why should there be a popular vote at the federal level at all? The voices of the people mean nothing Federally.

We are supposed to vote for our local governments. Our local governments are supposed to be the voice of the people they represent. Those people are then supposed to choose the people who will best represent their constituents to the federal level. The local governments (state level) are then supposed to choose their electors, who will in turn choose a qualified candidate to be the president, who will best represent all of the constituents.

Hence Reprsentative Republic. And THAT would recognize the sovereignty of states, it would limit federal power mongering, and very likely keep the populace happy as well.

The federal government is supposed to be a congregation (pardon the use of this word, I do not know the more appropriate word) of the wills of the people, not a popularity contest.

Example: I vote directly for Bob the Iron Worker, and he becomes my state legislator, Bob gets to have a say in who he thinks would represent not only Darksiege's best interests, but those of Mus, Lenas, Shuyung and Monte (were we all land owning or business owning residents of the same state). He is supposed to be thinking directly of who voted for him. And then Bob sends Tommy the Politician out to play in Washington. Well Tommy is supposed to do a damned job and NOT play horse and pony show for all of us sheep. We do not give a **** about Tommy... We hold Bob accountable. If Bob screws us over... we vote Bob out and put John in, now... Tommy is back to running Pizza for a living and John has a chance to really carefully consider who is representing the best interests of his constituents.

And John gets to choose the electors who he feels will keep the president representing his constituents.

**EDIT**
I DO however think that the voting at the state level should be restricted to land owners and business owners, or those who have served in the military (race, creed and color not factored in). This would ensure that the people with a vested interest in a community succeeding and thriving, and prevent people from trying to drag down everything to the LCD.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Given that the current practice where everyone can vote results in a system where a small minority of super rich essentially run the country , I shudder to think how bad it would be when the 50% who don't pay taxes now can't vote.

if they do not contribute to the wellbeing of their local area; why should they have a say?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I would posit that they don't really have a say now.

Giving the vote to only people who have wealth is just going to result in the wealthy looting the country and then moving somewhere else when it falls to pieces.

Why do you say this? You make attributions that are pattently untrue, and completely wrong, and then suppose that we should all concede some point because "your school books said so". You know better. You are one of the better posters here. Do better.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Less bad, because education, stake, and involvement run a direct parallel to tax paying.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Not neccessarily wealth, either land, a business, or have served in the military.

Land cannot easily be made mobile, the business does not have to be some multi million dollar multinational business, hell even having a franchise of a fast food place is still considered owning a business. And military service is technically available to anyone over the age of 18 years. So if you cannot qualify for at least one of those things... do you really have any business in trying to have a voice in the government?

And I understand the depths of what I suggest; if what I proposed were reality; I would lose my vote. But I am okay with that. I rent someone else's home, I work for someone else's business and I did not serve the country in the military.

But then, if I am refusing to become vested in my area: is it really my area anyway? It is my landlords, it is my employers.

I can technically just pick up my **** and walk away leaving everything for others to worry about.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

You're missing the point. That would actually work fine if it stayed that way. But of course it wouldn't. As soon as they got the exclusive vote they would quickly change the rules so nobody else could get into their club.

People who are not enfranchised have essentially no rights because there is nothing they can do to prevent those who are enfranchised from stripping all the rights they may have had to start out with.

Right... because that's what happened in the only historical era we have as evidence?

Yeah... I thought so. Bare assertion, and a bad one at that.

Not to mention the offense I take at you giving me, and many others here, the lable of "slave maker".

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Are they? Because most of the posters here don't seem to understand the reason it was created.

That's because thy haven't been told what they are, or looked to see what they are on their own.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Technically, as a party of Democrats, their official name is Democratic Party.

That's the name they chose, but it doesn't fit grammatically. So, to call someone out for being grammatically incorrect because they used the grammatically correct phrasing is kind funny to me.

I've always looked at it as:
If you support a "republic", you're a "republican"; if you support a "democracy", you're a "democrat". In that case, it's as Arafys stated.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Well, Republican is an adjective that describes the party. Doing the same grammatically (and correctly) for Democrats would be the Democratic Party.

I seriously doubt however that the poster objecting to my use of Democrat Party understands the actual grammar behind the name. He just knows whats written on liberal sites about the use of Democrat Party as a comment on their un-democratic methods, or a slur in his venacular.

I guess we just disagree.



On that, we agree.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

As opposed to the label of thief/looter you are essentially giving the people who can vote now but couldn't under your system?

Every empire in history has been killed by the wealthy snatching up as much wealth as they can and moving on to greener pastures, leaving everyone else to rot. That's how the British Empire died, the wealthy invested all their money in the US and bankrupted them, and when it started to fall apart they all moved here. It's how the US is dying now, everyone who has wealth is sending it to China and they'll all be moving there to repeat the process when the US dies.

Finally, the requirement of having property to vote was not enshrined in the Constitution, it was not in effect everywhere or for all elected positions, and the requirement of having wealth to vote was in fact abused quite regularly. Or do you think poll taxes were a good idea? Furthermore, you really think the lower classes were better off in the 1800s than they are now? During the Industrial Revolution the people whom you want to disenfranchise were only one small step above being slaves.

Xeq why do you think that is the cause of the death of the Empire instead of a symptom of the disease that killed it?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville