For US Residents - Are you registered to vote?

Post Reply New Topic

Third parties has no chance of getting in, in majority-based systems. I do not know if Australia are using the majority system or the proportional system.

I was a member of the green party of Sweden once in a time.

I really don't like compulsary voting. People shouldn't be forced to vote.

Well, I agree with you, but we could also see it as a civic duty because the state has provided you with healthcare and education when you were a kid.

Therron, yes, we have a majority system as opposed to a proportional system it suits our bicameral Congress as it was originally set up within our system of federalism. The lower house, The House of Reoresentatives who represent the people could very well adapt to a proportional system except for the rules placed upon it by the Constitution so it has remained a majority based system, the upper house, the Senate as originally established was to represent the intersts of the various states as soverign enties as they entered the Union. The 17th Amendment allowed for the popular election of the Senate and therfore we actually have two bodies doing the same function contrary to the original design of the Constitution. As to voting being a civil right, in the US, States are sovereign entities and control all elections except the Electoral College which meets once every 4 years to elect a President and a Vice President. Other than that, ALL ELECTIONS IN THE US ARE EITHER STATE OR LOCAL. One other thing to remember is that the US is not a democracy it is a Republic and ihe disctinction is profound...Madison details it in Federalist Number 10. The reasoning being is that democraies are as tyranical as any other form of government because minorities are not protected by rule of law...left unchect a tyranical majority will subjugate any minority that stands in its way...think of a lynch mob...it is for that reason our founders gave us the form of government we have. A Republic.

Well, take a look at most of Europe, with so man receiving public assistence, those who do work are taxed at such a rate that theier incentive to produce is limited. The productive are a minority suffering at the hands of a tyranical majority.

That is a myth, if you do not count children and retires as a part of the "tyrannical majority". Europe and US have approximately the same grade of freedom, with some additions and subtractions for both of them.

Which part is a myth? What percentage of Europeans receive some sort of public assistence? Tytler had it correct, when he wrote:

*Sigh*

We have about 4-7% of the people in most western European states that lives on unemployment subidies. Many of those seubsidies are compulsory insurances which the workers themselves are paying through their labor unions. Those who lives on unemployment subisdies must seek new works through law. In eastern Europe, the unemployment numbers are a bit higher.

Then the unemployment is rising due to compeition from China, and the new jobs which are coming are mostly low-paid part-time service work.

My question was not specific to unemployment, it was to ANY sort of public assistence.

It depends on what European country you are living in. But I do actually support public healthcare and public schools in their current shape [with a general health insurance]. Otherwise, differences in economic safety could mean the difference between suffering and health, between death and life. Moreover, the difference insurances in the US and the bureaucracy needed to adminsitrate them, are, if we would compare them on a per capita basis, more expensive to manage for the public sector than the general welfare system in for example Sweden.

Not really responsive as it begs the question. The only issue at question here here is; can a majority of non productive people tyranize a minority of productive people by voting more and more benefits for themselves? The answer is clearly, yes.

Most of the people are productive in some way or another. Actually, we should seek to lower the amount of work people are doing, not increase the amount of economic growth in production, since it would be pointless. Life quality is not the same as income, life quality is what you could do with your income and how much time you would have to achieve it.

As for that issue, what should be accounted as non-productive people? For example stock-owners or corporate board members aren't really working on their businesses, yet they take the lion share of incomes.

You are ignoring the point about the tyranny of the majority. Let me give another example. In this country, the majortiy by a fairly wide margin is against abortion, yet abortion is protected by law. This is due to the US being a Republic in the sense outlined by Madison in Federalist number 10 as opposed to a democracy. That is what is at issue, my example of Euprpean attitude toward public assistence was merely an examplre of the tyranny of the majority.

Yes I know. I have read extensively about Libertarian and Randian philosophy.

I think you ignore the fact that most European states, as well as the US, are indirect democracies, with constitutions which put up a limit to what the government and parliament may legislate about. In Europe, we do not vote about death penalty, or about press rights, but death penalty is not allowed and press rights are basically free [even though we have laws in some countries against for example fascism as an expression against minorities]. European democracies are not "the rule of the mob" contrary to the US, but actually use parliamentarism and limiting constitutions to stop violations against minorities. We do also have a supranational charter of human rights [European bill of rights] which all nations within Europe are supposed to guide themselves after.

I do not personally like representative democracy, or republicanism, and view that system as little better than plutocracy, but stop slandering about Europe. Both Europe and the US are using indirect democracy and are employing welfare systems. There is no genetic difference.