This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
So, there
can
be abuse. In a direct election, there is no middleman and thus there
can't
be abuse
in that respect
.
So I say again, the Electoral College is a joke.
People can still swing, even if they've been voted in directly. It's still open to abuse.
Emphasis added.
In the respect that an elected politician acts against the wishes of his electoral constituency? Try again.
Post by
Skyfire
So weren't and cannot are the same thing? You're the one playing coy -_-
Yeah, in this case, they are, because we have proof that they are.
The Constitution exists as it does today because the Articles sucked. Royally. You would have us return to the suckage.
I don't like it at all.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In the respect that an elected politician acts against the wishes of his electoral constituency? Try again.
No in the respect that there is a second layer of trust involved. Note my use of the word middleman.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So weren't and cannot are the same thing? You're the one playing coy -_-
Yeah, in this case, they are, because we have proof that they are.
The Constitution exists as it does today because the Articles sucked. Royally. You would have us return to the suckage.
I don't like it at all.
No I wouldn't have us return to that. You're the one implying falsely that I'm saying that.
Post by
Squishalot
In the respect that an elected politician acts against the wishes of his electoral constituency? Try again.
No in the respect that there is a second layer of trust involved.
Doesn't matter. Fact is, there will still be abuse of the fact that an elected politician can act against the wishes of the people who elected him/her in, wihch is the issue at hand. Arguing that it's at layer 1 or layer 2 is merely semantics.
Post by
Squishalot
When did I ever say get rid of the Supreme Court?
You're the one arguing for the public to be capable of impeaching the Supreme Court at will. Given the public will have a majority in law making, I presume that they will eliminate any Supreme Court who objects to their rules by majority vote also, which is the problem with your grand system.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In the respect that an elected politician acts against the wishes of his electoral constituency? Try again.
No in the respect that there is a second layer of trust involved.
Doesn't matter. Fact is, there will still be abuse of the fact that an elected politician can act against the wishes of the people who elected him/her in, wihch is the issue at hand. Arguing that it's at layer 1 or layer 2 is merely semantics.
More chance of abuse is not merely semantics. So you'd be perfectly fine with 200 layers of electoral colleges? The further you separate the people from the government, the less truly is the government really elected by the people.
Post by
Skyfire
No I wouldn't have us return to that. You're the one implying falsely that I'm saying that.
No, because I don't believe you when you say that it will be different from the Articles, because you still haven't shown us that they will be different in reality, only in theory.
I'm basing my conclusions on history. You know what they say about mistakes of the past...
Post by
Squishalot
More chance of abuse is not merely semantics. So you'd be perfectly fine with 200 layers of electoral colleges? The further you separate the people from the government, the less truly is the government really elected by the people.
No, I'm arguing that your solution of removing the party system doesn't prevent the problem you're trying to solve. 200 layers doesn't increase the likelihood of it happening, but for the fact that there's less transparency, and it's easier to hide such abuse. Under the current system, there is no more or less transparency than what you propose, so the chance of abuse is equally likely.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.