The Magna Carta

munroburton wrote:Because the limits of our various systems is not the franchise(although there's still some issues there) but the systems themself. We've all probably voted at some point for candidates or parties who didn't win, or did win but went on to break election pledges they made to secure those wins.

There's one issue related to the franchise that is still significant. Closed primaries mean that independent voters are forced to choose between candidates who were best able to fire up their party's base rather than moderates who might more accurately reflect their beliefs.

Starsaber wrote:

munroburton wrote:Because the limits of our various systems is not the franchise(although there's still some issues there) but the systems themself. We've all probably voted at some point for candidates or parties who didn't win, or did win but went on to break election pledges they made to secure those wins.

There's one issue related to the franchise that is still significant. Closed primaries mean that independent voters are forced to choose between candidates who were best able to fire up their party's base rather than moderates who might more accurately reflect their beliefs.

It would be really, really nice if some way could be found to limit both the franchise and the candidates to those who at least try to think things through and test them. Unlikely

DDHvi wrote:
It would be really, really nice if some way could be found to limit both the franchise and the candidates to those who at least try to think things through and test them. Unlikely

Also very vulnerable to abuse. Been tried numerous times, in many different incarnations. Whether the franchise was limited to nobles, or Christians, or men, or whites, or property owners, or the educated classes, or a warrior caste, all those systems ended up the same way: with the empowered class insisting that clearly only they are fully human and fully capable of reason, and therefor they are not only entitled to but also justified in exploiting and oppressing the powerless 'subhumans'
.

hanuman wrote:

DDHvi wrote:
It would be really, really nice if some way could be found to limit both the franchise and the candidates to those who at least try to think things through and test them. Unlikely

Also very vulnerable to abuse. Been tried numerous times, in many different incarnations. Whether the franchise was limited to nobles, or Christians, or men, or whites, or property owners, or the educated classes, or a warrior caste, all those systems ended up the same way: with the empowered class insisting that clearly only they are fully human and fully capable of reason, and therefor they are not only entitled to but also justified in exploiting and oppressing the powerless 'subhumans'
.

Indeed.

Which is why ANY kind of nongeneralised limitations tend to be extremely big, brightly strobing warning signs of something being seriously bad.

So if someplace has unusually high minimum age for voting, that´s probably not a huge problem, but if the voting age is different for groups, then there almost certainly is a PROBLEM.


And yes i most certainly include Manticore in the category of flashing warning signs. Any society preventing its poor from voting could just as well just legalise slavery, because little or nothing would be different politically.

Being dependent on the goodwill of others is one of the more mentally damaging things a person can be.

Tenshinai wrote:
Indeed.

Which is why ANY kind of nongeneralised limitations tend to be extremely big, brightly strobing warning signs of something being seriously bad.

So if someplace has unusually high minimum age for voting, that´s probably not a huge problem, but if the voting age is different for groups, then there almost certainly is a PROBLEM.


And yes i most certainly include Manticore in the category of flashing warning signs. Any society preventing its poor from voting could just as well just legalise slavery, because little or nothing would be different politically.

Being dependent on the goodwill of others is one of the more mentally damaging things a person can be.

I disagree re Manticore. I cannot remember all the particulars, but I do remember the franchise is limited to taxpayers - but at the same time, no one is prevented from paying taxes. So in that case, it is the individual's personal choice whether they wish to participate in the political process or not.

Very strange way of looking at things. While everyone pays indirect taxes (GST, VAT, sales tax etc), many can't pay income tax because they have limited incomes. While I've been retired for years I still pay income tax because of luck and hard work throughout my career, but most of my contemporaries don't pay. However they have accumulated a lifetime of experiences and knowledge, plus still contribute as unpaid volunteers. If they weren't allowed to vote but mainly young soldiers with limited life experience were allowed to vote, the country would be poorer for it.

The Manticore voting code would empower young military members to vote (as it should), while excluding many older and wiser people (as it shouldn't), and having commanded many such I shudder to think what type of country their sole voting would produce (in an extreme example).

hanuman wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:
Indeed.

Which is why ANY kind of nongeneralised limitations tend to be extremely big, brightly strobing warning signs of something being seriously bad.

So if someplace has unusually high minimum age for voting, that´s probably not a huge problem, but if the voting age is different for groups, then there almost certainly is a PROBLEM.


And yes i most certainly include Manticore in the category of flashing warning signs. Any society preventing its poor from voting could just as well just legalise slavery, because little or nothing would be different politically.

Being dependent on the goodwill of others is one of the more mentally damaging things a person can be.

I disagree re Manticore. I cannot remember all the particulars, but I do remember the franchise is limited to taxpayers - but at the same time, no one is prevented from paying taxes. So in that case, it is the individual's personal choice whether they wish to participate in the political process or not.

hanuman wrote:
I disagree re Manticore. I cannot remember all the particulars, but I do remember the franchise is limited to taxpayers - but at the same time, no one is prevented from paying taxes. So in that case, it is the individual's personal choice whether they wish to participate in the political process or not.

It´s not limited to taxpayers, it´s limited to those who pay more in taxes than they get any kind of money from "government".

That does most definitely not make it a "personal choice".


It´s also just as open for abuse as other variations. The people in power could easily start moving around definitions on what counts as getting money from the government, to exclude a majority of people instead of a large minority.

And even as it´s written, as far as we know it at least, something like 10-40% of the population will not be allowed to vote.
Basically, most people currently unemployed(allowing manipulation), single parents, retired not relying on saved money, sick and/or disabled etc etc...

Manticore works as a society because it has an abnormal constant boom economy thanks to the junction, not because it is a politically wellmade or sound system.

Tenshinai wrote:

hanuman wrote:
I disagree re Manticore. I cannot remember all the particulars, but I do remember the franchise is limited to taxpayers - but at the same time, no one is prevented from paying taxes. So in that case, it is the individual's personal choice whether they wish to participate in the political process or not.

It´s not limited to taxpayers, it´s limited to those who pay more in taxes than they get any kind of money from "government".

That does most definitely not make it a "personal choice".


It´s also just as open for abuse as other variations. The people in power could easily start moving around definitions on what counts as getting money from the government, to exclude a majority of people instead of a large minority.

And even as it´s written, as far as we know it at least, something like 10-40% of the population will not be allowed to vote.
Basically, most people currently unemployed(allowing manipulation), single parents, retired not relying on saved money, sick and/or disabled etc etc...

Manticore works as a society because it has an abnormal constant boom economy thanks to the junction, not because it is a politically wellmade or sound system.

Okay, in that case I do agree with you. Mind you, there is something to be said for having people make a sacrifice in order to have a stake in their governance, but even so, a parent will always choose to feed their child before having the right to vote. Also, the burden of sacrifice gets placed disproportionately upon the poorer members of society.

On the other hand, nowhere did Mr Weber claim to have created some kind of perfect society or political system, did he? Quite the opposite, in fact, what with the House of Lords' power compared to the Commons'.

Daryl wrote:Very strange way of looking at things. While everyone pays indirect taxes (GST, VAT, sales tax etc), many can't pay income tax because they have limited incomes. While I've been retired for years I still pay income tax because of luck and hard work throughout my career, but most of my contemporaries don't pay. However they have accumulated a lifetime of experiences and knowledge, plus still contribute as unpaid volunteers. If they weren't allowed to vote but mainly young soldiers with limited life experience were allowed to vote, the country would be poorer for it.

The Manticore voting code would empower young military members to vote (as it should), while excluding many older and wiser people (as it shouldn't), and having commanded many such I shudder to think what type of country their sole voting would produce (in an extreme example).

You forgot prolong. You and your contemporaries would still be working. Only a tiny percentage of the population would be old enough to be retired. And the vast majority of those would have saved enough money to still be taxpayers. Right now median income in the US is about $50,000. To receive that income in retirement absence any social security at all would require you to save about $5000-10000/year, however due to the wonders of compounding living to 500 years old retiring at 480 you'd only need to save a few cents/year and just about anyone should be able to save that much!

So the disenfranchised portion is going to be a lot smaller than it would be if instituted today. Mainly the poor, but due to the extremely healthy nature of the economy, there won't be a high percentage of those.

hanuman wrote:
Okay, in that case I do agree with you. Mind you, there is something to be said for having people make a sacrifice in order to have a stake in their governance, but even so, a parent will always choose to feed their child before having the right to vote. Also, the burden of sacrifice gets placed disproportionately upon the poorer members of society.

On the other hand, nowhere did Mr Weber claim to have created some kind of perfect society or political system, did he? Quite the opposite, in fact, what with the House of Lords' power compared to the Commons'.

Oh dear no, i wouldn´t be surprised if RFC would say it was "as flawed as every other system" or something, and i´m fairly sure he never WOULD claim it to be perfect.

IIRC, somewhere on the forum he has said it specifically was NOT perfect...