Voting for ideas

[Guest]

During big elections everyone seems to focus on the leader of the parties so much that it becomes more about them as a character than the ideas they stand for

My thoughts about a solution to this is that instead of voting for candididates, people would vote for ideas which are presented anonymously, this way it would be about the actual issues and less of a popularity charisma contest, thurthermore people would have to actually think about the consequences of each vote , if votes were done individually  by everyone for each issue rather than for a party and representatives...

 

I'm interested in responses about why this would be good or bad since it's just something I've been considering as a possible alternative to the current broken political systems of the world...

[God of the Forest]

6 minutes ago, Mystic Maya said:

During big elections everyone seems to focus on the leader of the parties so much that it becomes more about them as a character than the ideas they stand for

My thoughts about a solution to this is that instead of voting for candididates, people would vote for ideas which are presented anonymously, this way it would be about the actual issues and less of a popularity charisma contest, thurthermore people would have to actually think about the consequences of each vote , if votes were done individually  by everyone for each issue rather than for a party and representatives...

 

I'm interested in responses about why this would be good or bad since it's just something I've been considering as a possible alternative to the current broken political systems of the world...

  I totally understand that Idea and its a good one if maybe in need of an adjustment, its important to be aware of the candidate because you also have to be able to judge the character of the candidate (at least as much as is possible), we have to be aware of their eligibility, such as; experience and other factors. A candidate could put forth some ammmaaazing ideas, but if I didnt think they were experienced enough in politics or if I thought they were of poor moral character, I still wouldnt vote for them. So perhaps the problem lies with media exposure, sensationalism and how they paint the candidate rather than the ideas they put forth. So all in all, I see where you're coming from. Its a good concept  

[Dudette]

To be honest, when it comes to democratic republic like the one we have in Americas and Europe. People vote for the ideas which are represented by the candidates.

The only issue which we have is "is this candidate able to implement the idea to the system?". The problem which I see mostly is the fact that media try to paint different picture of the candidates, and I think this is the problem when it comes to the elections. Actually, when it comes to the elections, people are not stupid, they vote for the candidates who are able to implement the idea which they favor.

[Perissodactyla]

That would great. As it is, presentation of ideas is mostly avoided. And candidates who raise ideas that many people favor are ignored by broadcast media.

 

I don't know how you would begin to change how it works to move attention away from personalities and focus attention on ideas. Any suggestions on first steps?

 

The political campaign process is mostly an entertainment business that makes a lot of money. Characters and drama are needed for entertainment, so focusing on issues and ideas instead... would not be fitting the agenda of the entertainment/journalism industries, as well as corporations and their lobbyists who don't want people thinking about ideas at all.

 

I think it's fair to say that old people are okay with politics as entertainment, while young people want to focus on solving problems... so are focused on ideas and people who talk about ideas.

 

 

Polls and news coverage

A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted in May found Clinton and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in a "dead heat", but the same poll found that if Sanders were the Democratic nominee, 53% of voters would support him to 39% for Trump.^[167] Clinton and Trump were the least popular likely candidates in the poll's history, while Sanders received a 43% positive, 36% negative rating.^[168]Polls showed that Democratic voters older than 50 preferred Clinton by a large margin but those under 50 overwhelmingly favored Sanders.^[169]

Some supporters raised concerns that publications such as The New York Times minimized coverage of the Sanders campaign in favor of other candidates', especially Trump's and Clinton's.^[170][171] A December 2015 report found that the three major networks – CBS, NBC, and ABC – had spent 234 minutes reporting on Trump and 10 minutes on Sanders, despite their similar polling results. The report noted that ABC World News Tonight had spent 81 minutes on Trump and less than 1 minute on Sanders during 2015.^[172] In November 2016, journalist Amy Goodman noted that on March 15, Super Tuesday III, the speeches of Trump, Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz were broadcast in full. Sanders was in Phoenix, Arizona on that date, speaking to a rally larger than any of the others, but his speech was not mentioned, let alone broadcast

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Polls_and_news_coverage

 

 

 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Definitely, it's basically a secondary school popularity contest as it stands.

[Yatogami]

Ok so let me get this straight. You want people to vote for issues, anonymously. Who submits these issues?

 

If it is the candidates, that are submitting the issues. Just anonymously. Who is going to stop them from lying? You have essentially removed the part, where the candidates have to show they are of character. Anyone can write something "Good" on a slip of paper. To me, it looks as if you are simply taking away the part that is hard. This will streamline corruption. 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

Ok so let me get this straight. You want people to vote for issues, anonymously. Who submits these issues?

 

If it is the candidates, that are submitting the issues. Just anonymously. Who is going to stop them from lying? You have essentially removed the part, where the candidates have to show they are of character. Anyone can write something "Good" on a slip of paper. To me, it looks as if you are simply taking away the part that is hard. This will streamline corruption. 

They aren't electing a candidate in this theoretical system, part of it is that each issue is voted individually rather than as a package like in the current systems

and the system wouldn't, allow for that

[Yatogami]

22 minutes ago, Mystic Maya said:

They aren't electing a candidate in this theoretical system, part of it is that each issue is voted individually rather than as a package like in the current systems

and the system wouldn't, allow for that

I know what you meant, but what guidelines are there for preventing contradictions. Who submits the issues as well? People wont vote if there is 10000000000 issues to vote on.

[Guest]

There would be smaller more frequent votes, they'd be decided by what issues come up and need solutions, the possibilities... maybe would be submitted by many and narrowed down until a few options for a vote remain, This way it wouldn't actually be giving power to an individual since it's done anonymously in every way

 

I don't know if this is good, I just came up with it quickly,

 

the concern for me is that it must not be an authoritarian system, but it's not like the current systems aren't authoritarian so they don't set a high standard

[Yatogami]

13 hours ago, Mystic Maya said:

There would be smaller more frequent votes, they'd be decided by what issues come up and need solutions, the possibilities... maybe would be submitted by many and narrowed down until a few options for a vote remain, This way it wouldn't actually be giving power to an individual since it's done anonymously in every way

 

I don't know if this is good, I just came up with it quickly,

 

the concern for me is that it must not be an authoritarian system, but it's not like the current systems aren't authoritarian so they don't set a high standard

Authoritarian just means forcing people to do things, and be politically unrivaled as much as possible. So banning public speaking is authoritarian etc.  Then the constitution would also have no power. So the government wont give two shits about it saying we have that "right".

 

For every freedom one relinquishes, they take a step towards being ruled by authoritarian government. 

 

People telling other people what to do isn't authoritatian in the political sense. I think you are mistaking authoritarian government, with authority itself. I'm not sure though.

 

I do however, think this system will work if the they only chose a handful of laws a month to vote on. Making sure that if any contradict, theyd have to choose one or the other.

 

Also, there is this browser game you can play called "Nation states" and its a parody government simulator. Where you choose how to act on certain issues. Then, the game will simulate the results. Im curious to know how well your government will do.

[carbomb]

The main problem with this seems to be that then you get no idea what a candidate's temperament is like, which is pretty important.

[ThaHoward]

17 hours ago, Maou-sama said:

Authoritarian just means forcing people to do things, and be politically unrivaled as much as possible. So banning public speaking is authoritarian etc.  Then the constitution would also have no power. So the government wont give two shits about it saying we have that "right".

 

For every freedom one relinquishes, they take a step towards being ruled by authoritarian government. 

 

People telling other people what to do isn't authoritatian in the political sense. I think you are mistaking authoritarian government, with authority itself. I'm not sure though.

 

I do however, think this system will work if the they only chose a handful of laws a month to vote on. Making sure that if any contradict, theyd have to choose one or the other.

 

Also, there is this browser game you can play called "Nation states" and its a parody government simulator. Where you choose how to act on certain issues. Then, the game will simulate the results. Im curious to know how well your government will do.

 

I got rid of crimes  No one is dying from crimes, and I have no jails. I also made flogging and death penalty illegal  

[Yatogami]

5 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

 

I got rid of crimes  No one is dying from crimes, and I have no jails. I also made flogging and death penalty illegal  

I just unlocked the banner for lowest youth crime and high culture.

[ThaHoward]

3 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

I just unlocked the banner for lowest youth crime and high culture.

Not the same as 0 crime, 0 murder and 0 prisons  

[Yatogami]

1 minute ago, ThaHoward said:

Not the same as 0 crime, 0 murder and 0 prisons  

Who needs prisons when you execute 20% of your total population for breaking the law.

[ChillaKilla]

37 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

Who needs prisons when you execute 20% of your total population for breaking the law.

But Howard made capital punishment illegal. Or are you talking about yourself?  

[Yatogami]

2 hours ago, ChillaKilla said:

But Howard made capital punishment illegal. Or are you talking about yourself?  

I am talking about my nation, that is a massive. Howard's country has like 5 million people. Mine has 855 million people. I have weaponized bees, and satellite lazer cannons  

[ThaHoward]

Mine is better. Even if I made some wrong decisions  I even misclicked one, but hey people are allowed to walk aorund naked freely and watch porn on their workplace. Can't get better than my liberal paradise

[ChillaKilla]

23 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

I have weaponized bees

what in deadly pollination

[Yatogami]

1 minute ago, ChillaKilla said:

what in deadly pollination

It was due to the result of legalizing genetic modification, to help bees survive parasites and fungus. It resulted in super deadly ones, and then I harnessed that power to use in the military. Think tracker jacks from Hunger games.

[ChillaKilla]

6 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

It was due to the result of legalizing genetic modification, to help bees survive parasites and fungus. It resulted in super deadly ones, and then I harnessed that power to use in the military. Think tracker jacks from Hunger games.

Hey if it works  

[Yatogami]

Just now, ChillaKilla said:

Hey if it works  

I want @ThaHoward to scream "Not the bees" if we ever go to war. xD

[ChillaKilla]

54 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

I want @ThaHoward to scream "Not the bees" if we ever go to war. xD

You gotta scream "RELEASE THE BEES"

[Yatogami]

1 minute ago, ChillaKilla said:

You gotta scream "RELEASE THE BEES"

 

[Toothlesss]

On 5/28/2017 at 10:55 AM, Maou-sama said:

Also, there is this browser game you can play called "Nation states" and its a parody government simulator. Where you choose how to act on certain issues. Then, the game will simulate the results. Im curious to know how well your government will do.

Thanks for this, it's super interesting and fun to see what values determine different outcomes . 

 

On 5/27/2017 at 10:40 AM, Mystic Maya said:

During big elections everyone seems to focus on the leader of the parties so much that it becomes more about them as a character than the ideas they stand for

My thoughts about a solution to this is that instead of voting for candididates, people would vote for ideas which are presented anonymously, this way it would be about the actual issues and less of a popularity charisma contest, thurthermore people would have to actually think about the consequences of each vote , if votes were done individually  by everyone for each issue rather than for a party and representatives...

 

I'm interested in responses about why this would be good or bad since it's just something I've been considering as a possible alternative to the current broken political systems of the world...

I'm actually on the  side of thinking that this would be a better idea in smaller countries. I doubt it would work in a country as big as the USA. In big countries, I feel you need representatives just because of the sheer size of the country, and if we went to a system similar to this, there'd be a huge disparity between the rural and city areas. 

 

Example-Rural areas would go for less gun control while cities would vote for more. Thing is, some counties have rural, suburban and city areas, so I could see it working on a local level, but not on a national level. 

[ChillaKilla]

8 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

 

Howard 's army:

 

 

[Guest]

So from the direction of this topic I guess that you all want to vote about the issue of militarised bees?