Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Military Service - Could have potential, but then there are statistical problems some perceive - such as where many soldiers fall on a political scale, the amount of education, the influence of ecumbent government.
Maybe being a soldier would enlighten you a bit on the politics of the military. No offence, but all the servicement I know are democrats and I really don't buy your argumetn. Education is (used to be) an important part of the military...thats why its incorporated into my system (which i guess I never reall fleshed out).
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Lottery - I always found this interesting. Instead of large scale voting at each election a set number of people (say 7000) are randomly selected - they vote. Just them. Then next election a different 7000 are drawn and so on.
I agree with Robtard, bad idea. First off, 7000 is way to small a sample size.
Originally posted by dani_california
limiting who can vote to those who serve in the military would deny people of certain religions the right to vote and limiting it to the educated would leave the poor out.
In my country, all religions are allowed to serve. Education is essential. Perhaps this nation should fund the enlightenment of our people?
Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe being a soldier would enlighten you a bit on the politics of the military. No offence, but all the servicement I know are democrats and I really don't buy your argumetn. Education is (used to be) an important part of the military...thats why its incorporated into my system (which i guess I never reall fleshed out).
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying I believe it, nor was I arguing for such an image. However large sectors of society, whether by way of bias or media stereotyping have a bad views of the military - fair? Certainly not, but an unfortunate reality.
A well educated army is a very good thing, and to a degree I am with the concept of an the vote being conditional on something like it, but it is that perception that people have that would be the problem. And of course you also hit a nail on the head - all the servicemen you know are democrats. In any situation where a group is perceived as on a specific place on the political spectrum (be it democrat, or strangely Republican, as many think soldiers are often Republican, which to my knowledge was born out of media coverage of the last election when the Republicans kept talking about votes from soldiers abroad) there would be resistance.
I agree with Robtard, bad idea. First off, 7000 is way to small a sample size.
Well I didn't say it had to be 7000, though that was the number used in the example when I first saw it (though the fictional nation in question was a small one)
Lottery would be a horrible idea, it would be corrupt and unfair from the start... Look what happened in Florida in 2000, that was a debacle filled with corruption and that was supposed to be a fair voting system, just imagine if voting was made by 'random' slection, there would be no randomness about it, the jackles would move in and take control.
Indeed, which was one of the issues raised in the article - sufficient checks and balances to insure true impartiality. And of course, even drawn randomly from a computer database there would theoretically be a slim chance everyone selected might be a hardcore liberal/conservative.
Although I haven't thought about it thoroughly education seems to be a fair requisite. By education I mean college or some kind of post highschool erudition.
Indeed, if anything was to convince me to limit voting to people who have a certain criteria I think it would be having education as that criteria.
In my country, all religions are allowed to serve. Education is essential. Perhaps this nation should fund the enlightenment of our people?
I'm assuming he is more talking about those religions that advocate pacifism, or at the least no violence, rather then the military discriminating against them.
Although there is more to the military then just combat - many noncombatant rolles are available.
Originally posted by Eis
Yeah but not all religions support the military. (the concept in general not particular wars)
Then I say allegience to the state trumps your religious freedom.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying I believe it, nor was I arguing for such an image. However large sectors of society, whether by way of bias or media stereotyping have a bad views of the military - fair? Certainly not, but an unfortunate reality.A well educated army is a very good thing, and to a degree I am with the concept of an the vote being conditional on something like it, but it is that perception that people have that would be the problem. And of course you also hit a nail on the head - all the servicemen you know are democrats. In any situation where a group is perceived as on a specific place on the political spectrum (be it democrat, or strangely Republican, as many think soldiers are often Republican, which to my knowledge was born out of media coverage of the last election when the Republicans kept talking about votes from soldiers abroad) there would be resistance.
I certainly agree that a well educated army is essential, however, I disgree some on your perspective. My gereneration has the highest approval rate of the US military in US history, over 80%. At least in the scholarly community, the relationship between the military and political parties is more well understood.
I've always felt that Republicans are for the generals, and Democrats are for the soldiers.
However, this would be swayed. Seeing as most people want to vote, most people would serve and that would balance out inconsitancies. In my perfect world, military service would be mandatory, but I think thats my own personal opinon and not what is best for the nation.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Although there is more to the military then just combat - many noncombatant rolles are available.
Certainly, I didn't really come forward with the full sysytem...somwhere, I later reccomended 2.5 years non-combat. Combat would still be all-volunteer. I think support and administrative roles are fine for the average citizen. A 6 or 9 month tour doind foreign aid would also be extroadinary. Higher education could also be built into this system.
Originally posted by Alliance
I certainly agree that a well educated army is essential, however, I disgree some on your perspective. My gereneration has the highest approval rate of the US military in US history, over 80%. At least in the scholarly community, the relationship between the military and political parties is more well understood.I've always felt that Republicans are for the generals, and Democrats are for the soldiers.
However, this would be swayed. Seeing as most people want to vote, most people would serve and that would balance out inconsitancies. In my perfect world, military service would be mandatory, but I think thats my own personal opinon and not what is best for the nation.
True enough. As I said, the idea has always intrigued me, and I think there could be potential for it to work, even though I think it is highly unlikely it ever will. And it would balance with my idea everybody should be required to vote (in absence of a valid more exlusive policy.)
As for the mandatory service, I actually think that is a good idea - recently in Australia a politician raised the idea of combining a form of national service as a component of High school education - naturally the HSC would still be primarily education based, but there would be a section where a certain number of hours would be dedicated to a national body of some kind - the options being military, emergency service or political/charity (which included the Salvation Army.) It actually did look like an excellent idea, and very workable - but certain groups were quick to jump on it and bemoan about "Vietnam era conscription ideals are outdated in modern Australia" - despite the fact it was nothing of the sort.
Which actually made me think "and they let these people vote?"
Certainly, I didn't really come forward with the full sysytem...somwhere, I later reccomended 2.5 years non-combat. Combat would still be all-volunteer. I think support and administrative roles are fine for the average citizen. A 6 or 9 month tour doind foreign aid would also be extroadinary. Higher education could also be built into this system.
Exactly. It is one of the things I like about Australian military training - that it is a form of higher education. Virtually every person who signs up comes out with a degree of some nature - in electronics, communication, administration. Though it isn't common for foreign tours for aid here, one guy I know, whose uncle has been in the army 15 years left Australia for the first time on active duty a couple of years back to help out in the Solomon Islands.
So are you for saying so and quite imature for leting that be known for the times you said it.jm
If my skills in translating gibberish are as good as I claim they are, then I think she is saying that the person who called her stupid is equally stupid and immature for calling her that, which lets people know both she and they are stupid by letting it be known by saying it.
Which strikes me as stupid.
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No actualy it means you are the o ne who is immature and stupid not me.All I am doing is just saying that being gay is a sin and will get you to go to hell.JM
You are stupid for the following reasons:
1) You can't spell
2) You're grammar is horrible
3) You never present facts in your argument
4) You beleive in Hell
5) None of your arguments include logic of any sort
6) You show a poor knowledge of what you talk about, and a severely limitted perspective
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True enough. As I said, the idea has always intrigued me, and I think there could be potential for it to work, even though I think it is highly unlikely it ever will. And it would balance with my idea everybody should be required to vote (in absence of a valid more exlusive policy.)
Cool. I've been thinking about this for a while and I think its a great idea. It'd show a lot of kids what the world is like, improve their health and education, create a national identity, and create responsible citizens.
Those are pretty big plusses in my books. Its nice to see someone agrees. I'm about to start writing a paper on the military's role in democracy, so thanks for the tip, I may serach for that piece of legislation. 🙂