Tests in order to qualify to vote? The Democrats in America don't even want to require people show a photo ID at the polling station. No, I'm not making that up.

So basically all forms of government are corrupt to some point so it is probably best to have as little government as possible interfering into the lives of people. I'm all for that.

In a nutshell that is Ron Paul's stance

I'd lay down some rules in black and white Koheets, leaving opinion out of the decision of who votes and who doesn't. Even far right/left voters should be allowed to vote, but they will have to earn that along with everybody else.

I suspect that some genuine people might miss out unfairly, but surely what's most important is what's best for everybody. It won't be a perfect system, but it'll better than the current one.

It's been done, by sex, by property rights, by education levels, by age limits (starting age). Any better ideas?

I would say only those who take a vow of voluntary poverty should be allowed to vote. At least then we can be sure they are not voting out of self interest, and they would have to view voting for a government as a true calling.

Of course, theocracies have tried something like this, and actually haven't fared too bad in many cases (and of course instances where they have failed miserably), but my proposal would be secular and open to everyone regardless of beliefs, and would also have controls to make sure there was no hierarchy inside the voting block.

Basically, the right to vote should be a tremendous privilege and require a tremendous sacrifice. When you vote, you affect the lives of countless others. In a perfect world only those who have demonstrated the ability to consider others interests before their own should have that privilege.

Tests in order to qualify to vote? The Democrats in America don't even want to require people show a photo ID at the polling station. No, I'm not making that up.

You don't have to show any form of ID at all to vote in the UK - either at local or national elections.

I'd sacrifice my right to vote as long as I no longer had to pay any tax but as long as the government is taking money out of my pocket I want a say in who they are. "No taxation without representation" and all that.

I think simple tests to check people's understand of politics and economics (just the basics) would be a start. Plus the requirement to work (with exceptions like disabled people) or contribute in some other way.

That should discriminate against the lazy and the stupid, which is fine by me.

Anyone who walks into a shop and buys something is contributing. The government creams 20% off the top of the price on most things.

No disrespect intended, but using Cambodia as an example of a Communist Country that might have been better off without democracy might not have been the best choice.

Well, first of all it is ludicrous to even consider Cambodia is a democracy, or Thailand for that matter. Elections are but one pillar of it is required to have true democracy. Calling yourself a democracy means nothing. Take the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea for instance.

Most countries that have the word 'Democratic' in their title seem to be anything but.

So basically all forms of government are corrupt to some point so it is probably best to have as little government as possible interfering into the lives of people. I'm all for that.

In a nutshell that is Ron Paul's stance

Right on cue.

I know I've given you grief over the years for being his #1 cheerleader on this forum - but Ron Paul has got my vote in 2012. I just hope I get to cast it in November.

I would say only those who take a vow of voluntary poverty should be allowed to vote. At least then we can be sure they are not voting out of self interest, and they would have to view voting for a government as a true calling.

I have found that as far as American politics are concerned, Republican/Conservatives generally vote for what they hope the candidate can do to help the country and Democrat/Liberals generally vote for the candidate they hope can help them out personally.

I would say only those who take a vow of voluntary poverty should be allowed to vote. At least then we can be sure they are not voting out of self interest, and they would have to view voting for a government as a true calling.

I have found that as far as American politics are concerned, Republican/Conservatives generally vote for what they hope the candidate can do to help the country and Democrat/Liberals generally vote for the candidate they hope can help them out personally.

Would that be because the Republican demograph is more affluent than the Democrats? It's easy to be altruistic when you have no worry about paying the rent.

I'd lay down some rules in black and white Koheets, leaving opinion out of the decision of who votes and who doesn't. Even far right/left voters should be allowed to vote, but they will have to earn that along with everybody else.

I suspect that some genuine people might miss out unfairly, but surely what's most important is what's best for everybody. It won't be a perfect system, but it'll better than the current one.

You're veering towards my stance.

I say voters neeed to qualify (or can be disqualified, eg by not working or not having an understanding of what they are voting for....or committing a crime of dishonesty), and that goes hand-in-hand with votees needing to qualify (by the same set of qualification plus some extra more stringent ones).

I suspect though that the set of qualifications I'd lay down would not suit many people.

I'm coming from the premise that in a democracy, it's majority rule. Majority rule, is by definition, the average decision. To get the best for a country and for society, better than average decisions need to be made.

Popular decisions are for things that do not affect the welfare or prosperity of the country. Deciding on the design of a new national flag can be a popular decision. Fiscal policy should be left to well educated, specifically educated and well-meaning people.

I think simple tests to check people's understand of politics and economics (just the basics) would be a start. Plus the requirement to work (with exceptions like disabled people) or contribute in some other way.

That should discriminate against the lazy and the stupid, which is fine by me.

Anyone who walks into a shop and buys something is contributing. The government creams 20% off the top of the price on most things.

And what if they did nothing to earn that money they bought something with? What if they were given that money by the government for doing nothing?

The government would then just be taking back 20% of their own money and losing 80%. Hardly what you could call a contribution.

I suspect though that the set of qualifications I'd lay down would not suit many people.

Without you even telling me what those qualifications are, I bet the individuals affected would be able to do something about it and make themselves qualified. Such as get a job, or read a book or two.

I'd lay down some rules in black and white Koheets, leaving opinion out of the decision of who votes and who doesn't. Even far right/left voters should be allowed to vote, but they will have to earn that along with everybody else.

I suspect that some genuine people might miss out unfairly, but surely what's most important is what's best for everybody. It won't be a perfect system, but it'll better than the current one.

It's been done, by sex, by property rights, by education levels, by age limits (starting age). Any better ideas?

One of the Athenian ideas which has fallen by the wayside is ostracism. If an ostracism was held, every voter had the right to write, on a piece of potsherd, the name of the person he would most like to see banished for the next ten years. The one who got the most votes had to pack his bags and go. Apart from the fact that it would be completely impracticable for the large numbers of voters in a modern democracy, what a wonderful idea!

Ostracism is a bad idea for the same reasons as any important popular decision is a bad idea.

Imagine a very fine politician who makes sound decisions representing his electorate. He makes one choice that is techincally wise, but badly affects, say, the national football team. Guess what happens if ostracism was in place....and what a shame to lose him/her over the fact that the ignorant masses hold the football team in higher regard than (say) bio-security issues.

I suspect though that the set of qualifications I'd lay down would not suit many people.

Without you even telling me what those qualifications are, I bet the individuals affected would be able to do something about it and make themselves qualified. Such as get a job, or read a book or two.

No.

Well some, yes.

But I'm harder than that and would outright exclude perhaps 30% of the population. Maybe even more.

For example, imbeciles should not play a part in choosing the direction of the country. Habitual criminals of a violent or dishonest nature.There can be a general referendum for everyone, but those referenda are not over policy, more for things like what colour footpaths and the opening hours of the public library.

A country's policies need to be wise, and that does not equate well with popularity.

So basically all forms of government are corrupt to some point so it is probably best to have as little government as possible interfering into the lives of people. I'm all for that.

In a nutshell that is Ron Paul's stance

Right on cue.

I know I've given you grief over the years for being his #1 cheerleader on this forum - but Ron Paul has got my vote in 2012. I just hope I get to cast it in November.

No problem on the riding me about RP

It is good to see you are open minded enough to investigate things yourself & make a choice.

I doubt he will get the Republican nomination as he does not kowtow to those who run that show.

But if not hopefully he will still run libertarian ticket.

It will be tough & like last time the Democrat & Republican nominees will get tons of backing & air time while trying to ignore all others.

We will see..... For myself...Of the current lot he is the only choice that really has a clear view of the financial crisis & what it takes to at last start to cure it.

Ron Paul's domestic policies are great, but he is considered kooky on international policies like letting Iran get the Bomb, so has no chance of winning.

I prefer Hermain Cain - who will not win either.

Ron Paul's domestic policies are great, but he is considered kooky on international policies like letting Iran get the Bomb,

I dont think his stance that it is ultimately not our call is kooky.

I mean if you take that line of thought & extend it where does it end?

Are we a Nation or an Empire?

Do we lead by example or endless preemptive strikes to dictate to the

rest of the world how we demand things to be?

If the latter I think soon enough financially we will not even have that as a choice so the case may be moot.

An opinion I just read today about the last debate & RP's stance on Iran...

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/23/why-ron-paul-gets-no-respect/

Ron Paul's domestic policies are great, but he is considered kooky on international policies like letting Iran get the Bomb, so has no chance of winning.

I prefer Hermain Cain - who will not win either.

That's not kooky. The right for a nation to self defence is not kooky.

Iran needs to deter any attacks from the aggressive Israel.

And we don't need to hear that tired old sound bite that I know you want to post. We've read it a few times from you already. There's alot more to the situation than one out-of-context and misinterpreted sentence.

Most Americans think it's Kooky, so there is no way that he can win.

Iran needs to deter any attacks from the aggressive Israel.

Pretty much everyone, everywhere thinks that is Kooky.

Most Americans think it's Kooky, so there is no way that he can win.

IF that is true, then "most Americans" may be gullible and subject to the mass-hysteria based on false4hoods that we all have come to know....like WOMD in Iraq and Gaddafi is a monster.

Well, here's some thoughts for the U.S...my so-called home country.

The current political situation consists of two almost equal (in numbers anyhow) political partys whose policies seem to generate more heat (arguement) than light (understanding).

The network news shows seem to concentrate more on sensation in their news coverage than any real discussion of the issues.

News is presented in the "sound-bite format", more to turn the head of the average viewer than to present any real information. The goal is to provide a sensation...show the bodies, the blood, the fire and destruction; but don't spend take to long explaining why. Instead go on to the next "sound bite" to show some more bodies, or better yet, body parts so the viewer doesn't have to think to much or for to long.

The political campaign season is so long and so costly that only candidates with a source of that money can hope to have a serious chance of being elected. This fact means that only big business or instituions with a lot of money can bankroll such a candidate. and such rich backers do not sponser a viable candidate without expecting a good return on their political investmant...if not financially, at least in influence when their candidate does win. For that reason, no matter what their political agenda is, both parties now field candidates that are, in fact, alighed to the self-interest of their wealthy backer's interests and not the interest of the average voter in the street.

The old Jeffersonian ideal of the "enlightened common-man" ruling the country is almost dead. Certainly it is close to dying today, at least.

Put all those facts together, and what do you think "Democracy" will be like in the next 50 years?

Personally, I don't see much hope for any real Democracy in the U.S. any more. What it will be is a media show, run and bankrolled by large corporate and financial interests; and run for their own good and to perpetuate their social-economic political self-interests by manipulation of the sources of information to a largely apathetic and basically uneducated public in meaningless political spectecles run mostly as a show for that uneducted public to enjoy. Politics as "Bread and Circuses" for the masses.

That's what I expect the state of so-called Democracy to be in 50 years, if not sooner, in the U.S.

But I don't care, because by that time I'll be dead and in my grave, and won't have to see that sad day; the end of any real participatory Democracy in the U.S.

P.S. Having just completed this, and then looking at the responses from some other posters to the original post... I would just like to thank them for clearly proving my point about the current average voter in the U.S. today/

I contended that the U.S. voter was becoming a uneducated, apathetic, and largely meaningless extension of the social political financial elite for that elite's own self-interest.

I also made the contention that this would become the norm in the near future, and would soon result in the death of any real Democracy in the U.S.

Once again I would like to thank all who responded for demonstarating that my point is valid.

Iran needs to deter any attacks from the aggressive Israel.

Untrue as Israel has had the ability to attack Iran whenever they wanted for decades now and haven't.

Most Americans think it's Kooky, so there is no way that he can win.

IF that is true, then "most Americans" may be gullible and subject to the mass-hysteria based on false4hoods that we all have come to know....like WOMD in Iraq and Gaddafi is a monster.

Or, more likely, it is just plain Kooky.

Once again I would like to thank all who responded for demonstarating that my point is valid.

Your own posts are a much better example of some of your complaints about the problems with American citizens.

Ron Paul's domestic policies are great, but he is considered kooky on international policies like letting Iran get the Bomb, so has no chance of winning.

For decades the two most important issues to me were foreign policy and national defense - hence I've been a Republican. I didn't agree with Ron Paul's isolationist positions. Now, my interests are leaning more toward getting our financial house in order and that is where RP does make sense. I'm also fed up with whiny foreigners and think we should just let them fend for themselves (die fighting their own battles). So I'm becoming more isolationist as well. Again, RP makes sense here. If Iran gets the bomb and attacks Israel or another ally of ours, would Ron Paul sit back and do nothing? I'm not sure he would but at this stage I'm willing to take that chance.

Imafarang, there is some truth in your post, but not much. People are responsible for their own ignorance; not the media. A sound bite is nothing more than a prompt for those who have some interest or desire to learn more.

There really is no financial house to get in order. There is an illusion of money and it's based on nothing more than an illusion. Economics is a little bit like religion, it's based on faith (and a few concrete indicators).

The Republican agenda is to either bomb others into submission or poverty. I am the strongest in my neighborhood as long as others are weaker.

Most Americans think it's Kooky, so there is no way that he can win.

I do not think *most* Americans think it is kooky.

But I do think a great many live in fear due to soundbites fed to them on TERROR

It is a sad state of affairs that folks do not tend to question the obvious these days.

So while I cannot say with authority as you do that *most* think it is kooky.

I can say that I as an American do not live in fear of what may be with Iran.

I would hope that most thinking Americans & Israeli's feel the same.

Because at the end of the day I am quite certain that thinking Americans that

do not live in fear produced by sound bites know Iran poses no threat to America with or without nuclear capabilities.

No more than many other countries that posses less than what Iran would be able to produce....or launch for that matter.

I think if you put aside your concern for Israel.......

(they are highly capable of defending against anything Iran could pose as a threat)

& instead think of the greater good of the USA & its future...The USA does not need nor can it afford another preemptive war for a for a non-threat.... you may see the same....or not, it is your view/opinion to own.