Voting requirements(in an ideal society)

[Tasha]

I would like to hear input from everyone on what you think voting requirements in an ideal society (a society setup for the greater good of humanity) of elected representatives should be.

ie . intellectual requirements, age, social status, contributions to society etc...

[Clarksist]

Voting should begin once you begin working. That way only the people helping society can shape it politically.

[KptnKrill]

umm... none... In the "ideal" society all persons are concerned about their futures...

[Rural_Communalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:14 PM
Voting should begin once you begin working. That way only the people helping society can shape it politically.
I agree. When you start contributing to your society that's when you should begin to have a say about it.

[slim]

What does everyone think about compulsory voting systems like in Australia?

Im not too sure on it.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 03:12 PM
What does everyone think about compulsory voting systems like in Australia?

Im not too sure on it.
impedes on people's "rights".

[More Fire for the People]

The voting age should be the minimum working age, 16.

Those allowed to vote in elections would be workers, temporary unemployed, unemployed youth, and retirees. Also, any employed worker should be allowed to stand in an election.

Voting should be mandatory in local elections and voluntary in national elections, though local assemblies (which would be dually executive and legislative) should be decided by a lotto of workers over the age of 20 every year.

[slim]

A lotto could be seen as interrupting people's future. Some people may want to lead a life in politics. This would take away their choice. Also, corruption existing for this reason is possible and if this does happen then handouts given by budding politicans may lead to only the richest gaining seats forming a new kind of aristocracy.

[More Fire for the People]

In socialism you would not lead a life of politics, you serve the masses.
How could the rich rule by lotto, I said to be called up for duty in assembly you would have to be a worker at a minimum age of 20, and you would receive a workingman's wage.

[slim]

To be called up for duty in assembly you would have to be a worker at a minimum age of 20, and you would receive a workingman's wage.

This does not stop the rich from ruling through bribery of lotto officials.

[More Fire for the People]

The rich would not be able to do that because they do not have the freedom to do so. By the way, how to you bribe random selection?

[bzerk]

I belive that people should be able to vote at any age. You could be a 20 yearold retard, and he will have a better say than a 15 yearold wahtever you want to call yourself.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:56 PM
I belive that people should be able to vote at any age. You could be a 20 yearold retard, and he will have a better say than a 15 yearold wahtever you want to call yourself.
A ten year old may only vote for whom his/her parents would.

Once you start working, or are in higher education, you should vote. That way it encourages people to work, and it is a democracy OF THE PROLETARIAT.

[Omri Evron]

I think that the smallest area in which you could vote (lets say local council/ nieghborhood/village) should be a direct democracy- which is the most democratic syste but functions well only in small porportions. For large areas there should be people elected directly by everyone in that area/district/country. The voting right should be given to every citizen of a certain age (anyone above, say: 16-20). It is their basic right, and should not be taken away if someone says they are lazy (and who exactly is going to decie who contributes to the society).

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:57 PM
I would like to hear input from everyone on what you think voting requirements in an ideal society (a society setup for the greater good of humanity) of elected representatives should be.

ie . intellectual requirements, age, social status, contributions to society etc...
SOCIAL STATUS? WHAT THE FUCK!!

There should be no difference in social status in an ideal society.

If there had to be elected representatives, it should be based entirely on how well they would represent their people.

[Man of the Century]

The current U.S. Constitutional protections are perfect for any such requirements. These requirements currently allow local government to create regulations, except in the areas of: race, gender, age where voter is 18 years, and prevents any pole tax. The 14th Amendment insures that all state citiznes are treated equally.

I will try to think of other things, but I'm sure I've stated things correctly.

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 18 2005, 05:41 PM
The current U.S. Constitutional protections are perfect for any such requirements. These requirements currently allow local government to create regulations, except in the areas of: race, gender, age where voter is 18 years, and prevents any pole tax. The 14th Amendment insures that all state citiznes are treated equally.

I will try to think of other things, but I'm sure I've stated things correctly.
The problem with your logic is that in the state of Florida I'm kept out of the overwhelming majority of local and state elections. It's a closed primary state, which means you're not allowed to vote in the primaries of a party other than yours. The problem arises when most of the local elections are really decided in the primary because of the dominance of one party or the other.

For whatever reason, even though most of them are wolves in sheep's clothing, you can't get elected in my hometown if you're not a member of the Democratic Party. In many cases, the Republican Party doesn't even run a candidate. So, since I'm a member of the SPF, I generally don't get a say in local elections. Nevermind that whatever the case at the federal level, in local elections the illegal campaign contributions which get made are rarely (if ever) discovered.

[Man of the Century]

The Constitution does not discuss political parties, and you're referring only to the primaries. Any revolutionary change in the United States would have entirely new rules. Most post-revolutionary countries have either a one-party system based on the theories of the revolution. Though that has great faults and erodes freedom.

Becareful on this forum, though, lest someone (not me, I like choice) accuse you of being counter-revolutionary by worrying you won't be able to chose someone at the primary level in post-revolutionary U.S.

Ha!

[praxis1966]

I think you missed the point. What I was responding to was the your discussion of local governments being able to establish their own electoral regulations. In doing so, I was reffering to the regulations established by the the local governments in my area. Therefore, whether or not the Constitution invisioned the primary system, political parties, etc. or not, it left the door ajar for it. Therefore, the Constitution is flawed and the so-called protections you speak of have holes.

These loopholes, especially in closed primary states, serve to protect the hegemony of the two bourge parties by keeping people like me from voting in what has become the de facto general election. This was the essence of my argument. What I guess you thought I was arguing was the preservation of the totallity of the Amerikkkan electoral system. In any event, in light of my clarification, I hardly see how this qualifies me as a reactionary (not that you would believe so).

[Man of the Century]

I see your point, but I'm against the federal consitution discussing political parties.

[kurt]

Voting should be the working age, (which would be around 15-16). You can't put restrictions on democracy.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 12:46 AM
Voting should be the working age, (which would be around 15-16). You can't put restrictions on democracy.
Yes you can, unless you want the bourgeoisie running things again.

[Man of the Century]

Marxism ALWAYS requires restrictions. It is its unnatural nature. Freedom of two parties exchanging (goods, services, ideas) is the bain of communism and has to be curtailed to prevent the upper class's existance.

[tambourine_man]

no government in an ideal society, no voting in an ideal society.

[bolshevik butcher]

16. When you can work you can vote.

[kurt]

Originally posted by Rotmutter+Jun 19 2005, 06:19 PM--> (Rotmutter @ Jun 19 2005, 06:19 PM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 12:46 AM
Voting should be the working age, (which would be around 15-16). You can't put restrictions on democracy.
Yes you can, unless you want the bourgeoisie running things again. [/b]
Classic stalinist response. Stop the revisionist capitialist western dogs! PURGE

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by comradekurt+Jun 20 2005, 04:05 PM--> (comradekurt @ Jun 20 2005, 04:05 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:19 PM

[email protected] 19 2005, 12:46 AM
Voting should be the working age, (which would be around 15-16). You can't put restrictions on democracy.
Yes you can, unless you want the bourgeoisie running things again.
Classic stalinist response. Stop the revisionist capitialist western dogs! PURGE [/b]
I'm not a Stalinist, I hate Stalin.
I am a hybrid or third way of sorts of Trotkyism, Maoism, and Council Communism.

I am not advocated "purging the capitalist dogs", I'm just saying only proletarians should decide who control a proletarian state.

If a bourgeoisie rejects his bourgeoisie-ness and becomes a worker, who is to stop him from voting?

But if we do not supress bourgeoisie thought and election, who is to stop the bourgeosie from rising to power or spredding false ideas amongst the proletarian?

[kurt]

I'm not a Stalinist, I hate Stalin.
I am a hybrid or third way of sorts of Trotkyism, Maoism, and Council Communism.
Ok.


I am not advocated "purging the capitalist dogs", I'm just saying only proletarians should decide who control a proletarian state.
And the proletarians are the majority, therefore, through democracy they will control the proletarian state. If we spread democracy to every avenue of life possible, then the bourgeoisie will not have a chance.


If a bourgeoisie rejects his bourgeoisie-ness and becomes a worker, who is to stop him from voting?
No one will stop him from voting, that's the point ;).


But if we do not supress bourgeoisie thought and election, who is to stop the bourgeosie from rising to power or spredding false ideas amongst the proletarian?
We can attempt to supress bourgeoisie thought by constantly promoting socialist values, however we can, and should allow the bourgeoisie to express their opinions. And the people to stop a bourgeois from rising to power will be the proletariats, since they will be class conscious, and will thus know that the bourgeois is directly opposed to their class interests.

[More Fire for the People]

The bouregeoisie have the tools and the wealth to re-instate capitalism, look at Cuba where capitalist were permitted to say and do what they want and now Cuba is drifting towards restoring capitalism.

This has happened countless times in socialist revolutions, and if we don't maximize proletarian freedom and minimize bourgeoisie tyranny there will never be socialism.

[kurt]

The bouregeoisie have the tools and the wealth to re-instate capitalism, look at Cuba where capitalist were permitted to say and do what they want and now Cuba is drifting towards restoring capitalism.
If we establish socialism within a country, the bourgeoisie wealth will be confiscated, and used to create better conditions for the proletariat. However, outside bourgeois will still be able to exercise some sway over our country. This is what we must minimize, and this is also why world-wide revolution is not a lofty dream, but a necessity.

Furthermore, if you consider Cuba socialist, or ever considered it socialist, then I see the problem in your reasoning.


This has happened countless times in socialist revolutions, and if we don't maximize proletarian freedom and minimize bourgeoisie tyranny there will never be socialism.
Not really. Most so-called 'socialist' revolution were not actually 'socialist' revolution, but simply revolutions under the guise of socialism. And any 'socialist' state in the past has not exercised proletarian freedom, which is the cornerstone for your argument. I am very worried indeed on your definition of socialism.

[bolshevik butcher]

I disagree, everyone should vote. If we're doing so well then the majoratiy will agree with us anyway.