Should the UN be called in to observe US elections?

[el Chi]

Well, aren't IQ tests notoriously biased to a certain way of thinking and one can still be very intelligent whilst not having an amazingly high IQ score?
Besides, something like that is too elitist to claim it's "the will of the people".
Plus, if things f*ck up then it's all the fault of the intelligentsia and that gives the proles the motivation to have a revolution. Keep them down I say. Keep them down with the illusion of democracy and equality. And pie.

 

[clarky003]

well for starters they should change this "only over 18s are allowed to vote" thing. why do it on age? they should do it on IQ. if your IQ is below 110 then don't bother voting. and it'd work too. just get mensa to hold biannual IQ tests, and when election time comes around, those who met the requirements would get an invitation to visit the polling station.

I think voting systems suck, when people vote in a selfish manor.

and if it should balance out at 52% of people voting for their own intrests.

and 48% voting for the intrests of the community on the whole. well, if thats the case in England , it really sucks, cause youve got the selfish people who win, and that party is usually there because they suit what those 52% of people want, but what about the rest..? its not totally realistic, but its just an example of how one sided elections can be., :dozey:

so you better hope theres ove 50% of people in the vote who want collective improvement, so it will then benifit the ones who vote for their own intrests

 

[Dedalus]

well ok that was a bit of a wild theory, guess it's not too popular or practical. (and lack of smilies didn't help eh..)

argh what a mess. i understand what you're saying clarky. there's no real way to change that mentality.
people vote for either:
-who they want in power
-who they don't want in power
-who they think will lower taxes

so you get the two party system, whereby party A says "i will lower taxes, and put more money into schools, hospitals and public welfare.". party B will say "i will do all of the above, but i will raise taxes in order to fund them".

and this is where i get confused. people just seem to want lower taxes no matter what happens. they don't care if the coast guard is falling apart, or if the motorways aren't safe or you can't get a train running on time. all they bloody want is more money to spend. which is where your point about voting 'selfish' comes in.

i think it's dumb. one party will lower taxes but shut other divisions down to fund their new endeavours, thus giving you no benefit at all. the other party will keep all the other divisions properly funded, and will raise taxes in order to make your life better. BUT NO. the dingos want lower taxes, so they vote for the wrong people. and then we've got party C (lib dems) rambling, in an incomprehensible scottish accent about how they will make a difference (but no-one takes any notice naturally).

 

[el Chi]

I think voting systems suck, when people vote in a selfish manor.
and if it should balance out at 52% of people voting for their own intrests.
and 48% voting for the intrests of the community on the whole. well, if thats the case in England , it really sucks, cause youve got the selfish people who win, and that party is usually there because they suit what those 52% of people want, but what about the rest..? its not totally realistic, but its just an example of how one sided elections can be., :dozey:
so you better hope theres ove 50% of people in the vote who want collective improvement

You're right, democracy isn't entirely fair, but then what fairer system is there?
I don't altogether agree with you, however, that people only vote in a selfish manner. People often make protest votes, to detract from the larger parties' count in order to make a point. Often people vote for a party partly because tey think it will improve their lot but also because it will, in their opinion, be the best option for their country.
Elections are sadly usually one way or the other. democrats or Republicans? Labour or Conservative? Although happily, the LibDems are getting more popularity but then so are the BNP (although that's relative) This makes the larger parties wary and makes them wake up to the fact that their position is not quite so strong after all.
Another point is that, let's say 40% of a population vote and the vote is won by 52% vs 48%. That means the outcome is only the will of <counts on fingers and toes> 20.8% of the population. It's a cliche, but if you don't vote you don't have the right to moan.

And Dedalus - your point about politicians promising x, y and z but better than the other guy? See Michael Howard. The man is clearly a liar and cannot and will not do what he promises. And he's a vampire, or so says Private Eye...