PDA

View Full Version : Requirements to enter the upper house



FUCK THE POLICE
10-01-2006, 08:04 PM
I've looked over the various different requriements in constituions that countries require, and their consequences. For instance, New Hampshire has set their wages for their lower hous at 100 dollars per a year, almost nothing. This has lead to them having many retired members, and their average membe is aged over 60. This has also lead to many libertarian policies...

Which requirements do you believe should be necassary, especially for an upper house?

uscitizen
10-01-2006, 08:15 PM
Darn that is some wierd math, did dixie writwe the % figuring Java script ?
7 answers and all 50% ? Must be a fox news poll.

Damocles
10-01-2006, 08:18 PM
There have been 2 responders who never repeated an answer. Had you repeated one with H2O you would have had one at 100%...

uscitizen
10-01-2006, 08:20 PM
repeated ? You can vote often ?

Damocles
10-01-2006, 08:20 PM
In other words, in each case 50% of the responders had selected those choices as there had only been two and each answer was unique.

uscitizen
10-01-2006, 08:21 PM
I voted for no requirements, why would I need to vote for anything else ?

Damocles
10-01-2006, 08:21 PM
You could have selected the same choices as H2O. Are you really this dense?

Had you selected the same thing as watermark, 100% of those responding would have selected those choices at the time when you two were the only responders.

Damocles
10-01-2006, 08:23 PM
If you believed there to be more than one choice, it is the type of poll where you can select more than one. So, most people will believe that they should at least be over voting age, they will select other choices than you will.

uscitizen
10-01-2006, 08:23 PM
Nope I am not dense, if you select no requirements, then it would be stupid to select anything else.

Damocles
10-01-2006, 08:26 PM
However, at that time there were two respondents, H2O who selected more than one, and yourself who selected one that was different than H2O's choices.

Therefore in each case, at that time, 50% of the responders had selected each choice. Now that I have added mine, and they were different than both of yours, they are all now at 33%...

uscitizen
10-01-2006, 08:28 PM
Ohh it is not the % of the answers, but if we all select different answers....
?

Damocles
10-01-2006, 08:30 PM
Because only one of three people selected your choice, as well as each of the other choices.

Three responders answered differently, each choice that was selected has 1/3 of the responders. They each, accurately, were selected by 33% of those responding.

uscitizen
10-01-2006, 08:32 PM
Not which choice got 33% of the votes, K I see it.
The multipe choices thing was strange.

Damocles
10-01-2006, 08:33 PM
Yeah, it is on oddity... Until you get used to it.

uscitizen
10-01-2006, 08:33 PM
On the other pollI shoudl have picked both first and last choices for Dixie then :)

Damocles
10-01-2006, 08:35 PM
I don't think that one was a multi-choice poll. They can make them either.

uscitizen
10-01-2006, 08:37 PM
How do we tell the difference, what did I miss ?

Damocles
10-01-2006, 08:38 PM
If it has boxes instead of radio buttons it means you can select more than one of the choices... Usually it will say things like, "check all that apply".

uscitizen
10-01-2006, 08:42 PM
Ahh oh well must be beddy bye time for me. ;)
Anyway, I will explain my choice. If voters they are dumb enough to select an idiot or teenager than that is their chioce to mess up. Unfortunately democracy is not about being right, sometimes it is about the majority being wrong ;)
But that is democracy.

BRUTALITOPS
10-01-2006, 09:30 PM
"A proportion of the legislature needs to be aportioned to minorithy ethnic groups"

- watermark I think you're an idiot, ta.

OrnotBitwise
10-01-2006, 10:16 PM
"A proportion of the legislature needs to be aportioned to minorithy ethnic groups"

- watermark I think you're an idiot, ta.
This from a guy who buys into IQ tests? Pfui!

The only thing IQ tests can unequivocally be said to measure is the ability to take IQ tests. And I come from the IQ test capitol of the world.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-02-2006, 12:44 AM
"A proportion of the legislature needs to be aportioned to minorithy ethnic groups"

- watermark I think you're an idiot, ta.

Well, ethnic groups are important. People in Mississippi have a lot of experience with this stuff that you people in Mass. who've never seen a black person in your life don't. The minorities get run the hell over, and no one elected to the legislature is independent of majority opinion. It's a bad situation.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-02-2006, 12:47 AM
Grind selected that they need to meet an IQ test, which is entirely subjective. I, at least, suggested that they must be educated, while no one else did. Hell, they make our policies, sometimes getting a stupid majority isn't as imporatant as being intelligent. What is a majority? All it is is more people agreeing than disagreeing. That number is unimportant to me.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-02-2006, 12:49 AM
Yeah, it is on oddity... Until you get used to it.

Sorry for the confusion, but due to the nature of the poll I thought it wouldn't work well to restrict people to only one choice. Just because you want an age requirement doesn't mean you don't want an education requirement... and etc...

FUCK THE POLICE
10-02-2006, 12:53 AM
Ornot's requirement was intersting, though. I admitedly constructed my favored groups so that it would completely get rid of idiots and the ignorant masses and would leave mostly smart people with independent minds who weren't always subject to majority opinion. I might tolerate a 21 year old for the lower house, but not for the more deliberative upper house. Ornot's supposed requirement that they be 35, however, would probably be counterintuitive to the socialist causes he supports.

BRUTALITOPS
10-02-2006, 05:33 AM
I am always torn between thinking that if society wants to fuck themselves over they should be able to.. and between actually wanting competant people in government.

It's a tightrope.

Yes IQ tests are subjective... but perhaps there is a better test that is more accurate as an indicator of intelligence.

uscitizen
10-02-2006, 07:58 AM
I personally think all candidates for elected office should be required to publish a resume applying for the job, and if any lies are on there they are disqualified.
The most important jobs in the land and political ads/speeches are exempt from the truth in advertising law.....And don't even have to submit a work history or resume like a burger slinger at mickyd"s. Amazing what we stoopid Americans let our "leaders" get away with.

IHateGovernment
10-02-2006, 03:43 PM
Wow what a very interesting poll. Apparently we have some pretty elitist people on here.

I put no restrictions myself although that doesn't mean I don't believe in any restrictions simply that I don't like any of the restrictions suggested.

OrnotBitwise
10-02-2006, 03:53 PM
Ornot's requirement was intersting, though. I admitedly constructed my favored groups so that it would completely get rid of idiots and the ignorant masses and would leave mostly smart people with independent minds who weren't always subject to majority opinion. I might tolerate a 21 year old for the lower house, but not for the more deliberative upper house. Ornot's supposed requirement that they be 35, however, would probably be counterintuitive to the socialist causes he supports.But not counterintuitive to the cause of annoying certain younger persons. :D

Seriously, I'm not sure about 35. Upper house implies an age restriction to me but 35 is fairly arbitrary. Still, think about it. In today's world, someone 35 isn't even halfway through his or her lifetime yet. 35 is still young.

LadyT
10-02-2006, 04:05 PM
Wow what a very interesting poll. Apparently we have some pretty elitist people on here.

I put no restrictions myself although that doesn't mean I don't believe in any restrictions simply that I don't like any of the restrictions suggested.

Elitist? Because of things like age restrtictions? Please call it what you like, but even if you are a genius, wisdom is had over time. I don't think people that are 19 have the wisdom and experience to fullfill any of the duties described.

uscitizen
10-02-2006, 07:04 PM
And some with 2 desgeew still don't have the wisdom.
My reason for a resume requirement as with applying for any job. Education gets you started, experiece teaches you wisdom.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-02-2006, 10:10 PM
Wow what a very interesting poll. Apparently we have some pretty elitist people on here.

I put no restrictions myself although that doesn't mean I don't believe in any restrictions simply that I don't like any of the restrictions suggested.

It's an UPPER HOUSE. It's supposed to be a consenus body that counters the populists tendencies of the more democratic lower house and prevents tyrranny of the majority. This is why many upper houses are elected with PR and have stricter standards than the lower house - to ensure consensus. A person aged 18 isn't even fully mentally developed. He may be persuasive and charsmatic enough to get elected, but that's not what we're looking for. Also, people of certain ethnic groups and genders have feelings and experiences independent to their group, and that needs to be taken into account.

A person with education is far less likely to make hasty decisions than an uneducated person - Hitler, for instance, didn't have much education. He was charismatic but knew shit about how people lived. An upper house needs to protect against such things, not be a mirror image of the lower house, which is pointless. If you're going to arrange things most states do you might as well only have one house, and any differences between decisions made in the house are only due to flaws in the electoral system.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-02-2006, 10:12 PM
But not counterintuitive to the cause of annoying certain younger persons. :D

Seriously, I'm not sure about 35. Upper house implies an age restriction to me but 35 is fairly arbitrary. Still, think about it. In today's world, someone 35 isn't even halfway through his or her lifetime yet. 35 is still young.

No, I put the age limit at thirty. I put the most restrictions out of everyone. It's an upper house, to protect against tyrranny of the majority, and it needs to be composed of wise men. Age and education won't certainly produce this, but it's a lot better tool than simply crossing your fingers and hoping the people don't elect some fiery young person who hates gays and wants to take away democracy in the US simply because he has nice hair.