No taxation without representation in the territories

Absentglare said:

Fair voting for representatives is not a direct democracy.

Click to expand...

That is correct. But all one needs for atrocity under a truly, 100% representative system that perfectly mimicked popular opinion would be a majority opinion.

Other interests beyond individual citizens are represented in our representative democracy. Sometimes a state has an interest that runs contrary to a majority of its citizens, which is not necessarily a bad thing. And sometimes it's a good thing to need an overwhelming majority to make a change. And it's always a good idea to reach compromise and/or concensus, which requires multiple parties.

Absentglare said:

We agree on this point.

Click to expand...

Except, if I recall, they like their current status.

TurtleDude said:

if only people with real property were allowed to vote, Hillary would have only won Oregon and washington but not California. Interesting isn't it? How about no representation without taxation?

Click to expand...

Please don't tell me you actually think that's a good idea?

Nilly said:

Please don't tell me you actually think that's a good idea?

Click to expand...

I think we should limit the franchise to those who are actually not living on the public dole

CaptainCourtesy said:

If only people who had some intelligence were allowed to vote... we wouldn't have had the choice of the two candidates that we had.

Click to expand...

Might want to not denigrate the intelligence of the population at large. Many, many, very intelligent engineers have been humbled by Bubba and company. Sometimes dumbest can make the smartest look like fools. I would not discount Mr. Trump by any means as you have seen he has made fools out more than a few and that was before he ran for president. We will soon discover whether or not we as a country were foolish to elect him. Like the Rolling Stones song goes "You might not get what you want, but you might just find, you get what you need." Americans tend to have as a whole decent instincts about these sorts of things.

Nilly said:

Please don't tell me you actually think that's a good idea?

Click to expand...

The only people who should vote are those with skin in the game.

PirateMk1 said:

The only people who should vote are those with skin in the game.

Click to expand...

Skin in the game here meaning 'landowner'?

This is why nobody takes you seriously.

*patpat*

TurtleDude said:

I think we should limit the franchise to those who are actually not living on the public dole

Click to expand...

Bit of a nebulous term. Define further?

Example: my sister (who has a bachelors) currently qualifies for food stamps (to become a dietician she needs 1200hrs experience in a 'community setting' - which doesn't pay very much). Should she be considered unqualified to vote because of that?

TurtleDude said:

I think we should limit the franchise to those who are actually not living on the public dole

Click to expand...

All citizens are effectively on the public dole. That's what it means to have property rights enforced, a justice system, an army for defense, roads, utilities, etc.

Absentglare said:

All citizens are effectively on the public dole. That's what it means to have property rights enforced, a justice system, an army for defense, roads, utilities, etc.

Click to expand...

Really-so the government just makes up the money it uses to pay for the stuff? geez that is really stupid