Voting in the "free" world?
 

Or, does money and stupidity control it all?

Edit\add: if you could erase your mind and come to thought what drives innovation more need or greed?

Greed! F-u.

It is all backed by money , been that way for a long time. Voting doesn't really mean anything, hell even folks in the DPRK vote, the fact that it is just a 1 man vote is irrelevant since the argument is that 'here' you can vote. Which does not hold true, everyone can vote, but its rigged either with money backed by rich families or a pure dictatorship.

The US isn't really so much a dictatorship, as much as is more of a quasi-oligarchy since you have the Koch Bro. , and other rich dickheads that practically can back whomever they choose.

Just after writing this post I wrote this for the suggestion box @"work" )first suggestion I put in over my first year there :redface::( fortune 5:rolleyes::rolleyes:\BS)( That last bit is not quite relevant but doesn't thinking ahead ABC for anything?! Extra work is life, right? And, it's called work NOT GET A PAYCHECK! *ahem* sorry, ratty I kno. :banghead:

As it says in my signature: Laugh about it, shout about it/ When you've got to choose/ Every way you look at it, you lose
The nation-state is probably the worst idea ever concocted by humans. All significant political decisions need to be made locally (village, neighbourhood, ...).
jdk

Love parts of the musical quote also like the sentiment but I'm culturally ignorant in a worldly population, wouldn't logic make better choices than "us?"

I think that logic dictates that if the decision-makers are obliged to live with the consequences of their decisions then the quality of the decisions rise sharply. What would the minimum wage be like if MPs were paid the minimum wage? Human nature is based on reciprocity ("tit-for-tat"). Have a look at The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod. Humans behave well when given the possibility of cooperation or defection for everyone. Humans get nasty in situations were the possibility of defection is stifled.
jdk

Good thoughts.

"Tit-for-tat" makes me think "run a muck" every ant has it's hill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson ;)

"The Art of War" can teach us much but most of it doesn't matter just persists...

P.s: thanks for the title, looks inserting... Wilson came to mind from some of his views on evolving "humanity."

You really won't have "representative democracy" unless every elected or appointed official is made to live in constant(!) fear of being fired, and quite possibly arrested, purely on the basis of "the whim of the public."

For example, the members of the United States Senate probably would not have introduced a bill "banning pizza delivery" (in response to Bernie Sanders' bill legalizing pot ...) if they k-n-e-w that, less than 48 hours later (say ...), the voters could eject them from their office and strip them of their honorable and lucrative pension. "Just because we don't like you anymore, that's why." (And Sen. Bernie would have thought twice, too, in case his voters might have similarly ejected him.)

To my way of thinking, the biggest problem with senior Government jobs ... in the legislatures, in the executive, and(!) in the judiciary ... and in the "fourth branch" of bureaus and commissions ... is that they are secure, even to the point of "I cannot lose this job, no matter what I do."

Instead, every official should be forced to consider, every single day, that there is "a real and present danger" that they will un-ceremoniously lose their job suddenly.

And in the case of the Judiciary, it would go one step further. Immediately after a decision is handed down, you might be fired from the Bench. And, if that happens, the decision is suspended from going into effect until your replacement participates in a new decision ... knowing full well that he might get fired, too. Even though "the President" might appoint a Justice, the public can eject him or her at will, overturning "unpopular" decisions in the process.

If government officials across the board went into their jobs knowing these things, they absolutely would perform their jobs very differently from the way they do now. But, really, this is not an unprecedented idea. CEOs and other very-senior officers across the globe "serve at the pleasure of their Board," and are appointed by their shareholders.

Let's say no .gov? Still red vs blue... gridlock! :mad::eek::mad:

It's brainwashing to teach babies I know and it is going bad for centuries to come but eventually we'd change from "strongest" to "only the smartest don't need to worry about survival..." or, "fuhgeddaboudit." :D

In the USA, the problem with voting is that voters don't.

Your vote matters only if you use it. That's why so much energy is directed towards denying the franchise to the polity.

My Daddy taught me through example that voting is a not a right, it is a duty. He always paid his poll taxes (yes, I grew up white under Jim Crow; I'm a Southern boy, so I know a bigot when I see one) so he could vote.

Even if the choice comes down to the lesser of two evils, one of the evils is still lesser.

While money always plays in politics it's more evident in the States than in Europe. I'm voting Bernie in the primaries and if he's not nominated I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Clinton ONLY because of the SC seats that will likey be open during the next presidents tenure.

Just back from 3rd. :cool: That sounds like an opinion.

If your Rocky Raccoon not his mother...


The masses sometimes get it right, sometimes. For example we are not voting for many reasons... :-D don't blame the politicians and generals tho some people are born in to such a dysfunctional and hypocritical planetary system ("blessed" if you do, "blessed" if you don't) but can learn a blind eye or worse?

After hitting 40 this year I'll admit I'm at a loss on voting, after never doing it. Do "we" vote for people or things like roads and education &c?