End Women’s Suffrage Now!

[John Dibble]

I agree with ending women's suffrage, but I would also look into ending men's suffrage.

Don't you ever accuse me again of 'extremism'.

Frodo, does the word 'sarcasm' mean anything to you?

[John Dibble]

I agree with ending women's suffrage, but I would also look into ending men's suffrage.

Don't you ever accuse me again of 'extremism'.

Frodo, does the word 'sarcasm' mean anything to you?

Yes, but with Philip you never know.... 

This is the same poster who, I believe, advocated that only those who own property (in acreage) should be allowed to vote.  Everyone seemed to have taken him seriously then (as I recall).  Why not now?  Why not take him at his word?  He's seventeen years old, and still in the throes of his extreme phase which is not unusual for someone still in his teens. 

Hopefully the older he gets and the closer he gets to twenty, he might start mellowing out and become a little more reasonable and a little less arrogant.     

Well, IIRC he wanted states to have two legislatures, one of which would require you to own 1/5 acre of land or something like that to vote for a representative in it. I didn't quite agree with the method, but I do understand the point that he was trying to address with the idea - heavily populated cities have more influence in states with legislatures based only on population, so the cities could essentially force rural areas many miles away to deal with whatever policies they want whether they like it or not. It's kind of the reason why every state has exactly two senators - so the big, heavily populated states have less of an ability to force the small states into doing something. It is a legitimate problem, though his solution isn't the best one. At the state level, I'd suggest doing the same thing as the feds do with states, except having the state senate done by county.

[John Dibble]

Of course, those out there who dislike our democratic ideals are free to choose to not vote and leave the decision making to those of us who care deeply about our great nation.

If you don't like the idea of a government chosen by the people - don't vote.  If you want conformity and absolute loyalty to the government - there are plenty of dictatorships which will be glad to take you in and give you the abuse you seem to desire.

James, Bono is right that this is a strawman. It really shows that you don't understand what's being said here. To sum it up, I think Winston Churchill said it best:

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried."

Let's face it, government sucks. It's necessary, but it sucks. Democracy only makes it suck less - sometimes. It depends on who's voting. And I'm dead serious about that. If idiots are the majority, and they all vote, you'll get a democratic government, but it will be run by idiots. We'd all be better off if idiots didn't vote, but sometimes they do and it sucks for the rest of us. There's no helping it, it comes with the territory.

When people vote for a candidate based on stupid reasons, like the example of some women voting for a candidate because he's physically attractive, you get problems. And let's face it, many people will vote for a candidate for stupid reasons. If every person who voted was highly informed on the issues and had a sound, reasonable mind, then democracy would be absolutely great, but the fact is it's not gonna happen in our lifetime.

Personally, I'd rather be ruled by a council of unelected wise men and women who are highly principled and uncorruptable than live in a democracy. But seeing as there's pretty much no way to create such a council, I'll begrudgingly take a democracy with restrictions on the power of the majority. The founders of this nation realized the problems with democracy, and wisely put restrictions on what the majority could do(for instance, it takes more than 51% to amend the constitution). Democracy does have it's advantages over other governments, but to ignore the problems it has is foolish.