Personally, I feel that the continued voting for our leaders and the continued downward spiral of intelligence will only lead to the demise of America. The country is too damned divided and stupid. Some people will only vote for the most religious candidate, some will vote for the most racist, some will vote for the most environmentally friendly, and etc, and only very few will take ALL the positions of each candidate and choose who they think will do the best FOR WHAT THE COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO STAND FOR. We end up with some very stupid political figures who force THEIR ideals onto the public. That is not the aim of the system.

In this way I can understand why many individuals blame and hate the American people. We put the idiots in charge and let them run amok. Congress, presidents, mayors, councilmen, freeholders, etc, almost all of them are idiots, and they're voted in because saps like us watch their campaign advertisements without considering what we just saw, listen to the rumor mill, and jump on bandwagons like it's our job.

It's our fault we have such a worthless government. We made it. We have a congress that doesn't want to focus on anything more important than video games and gay marriage and a president who forges documents and gets away with it. Most elected politicians will just do what they think will get them re-elected and still in a job. This is a very dark time for American history.

We need a dictator. Someone who will make things happen the right way. Someone who understands that America and its constitution are supposed to change with the times.


If voting for our leaders was done away with, I would welcome the change with wide open arms.

If we had a dictator, he would not need approval of congress to do shit. Then, all the half assed ideas he has would be implemented instead of getting him called an idiot. Imagine if Bush had that kind of power; we would probably all have AIDS and be on FIRE by now.

Like you said, we're stupid. Ergo, since our leaders are going to come from us, they will also be stupid, regardless of how much power they have. Given how badly it always turns out when we allow them to do things, I therefore propose that instead of giving them more power, we heap on the bureaucratic red tape like there's no tomorrow.

Think of it like child-proofing a house. Babies don't know what they're doing, and are liable to do things like pee in a power socket, swallow 50 painkillers, or choke on some pretzels. Do we cover the sockets and put the prezels and painkillers out of reach, or do we leave power tools lying around and see what they do with them?

I concede that the second option would probably be pretty fucking hilarious. Still, its not exactly the sane choice.

I was thinking that today, but like that other guy said, I dont think it'd work.

I don't like it because it invariably results in the imposition of the will of the majority on the minority through the initiation or threat of violence.

Well, there would be SOME bureaucratic red tape in the ideal dictator system. We would still be allowed to vote on laws, etc. The wills of the majority and minority wouldn't be ignored. If a dictator is acting like a tool or like george bush, maybe a democratically elected council will vote to seize power from him, backed up by the constitution. But they have to cede power to a heir ASAP. Or something.

The problem with democracy is that most of the population is ignorant. Therefor whoever they vote for is just going to be someone who caters to the ignorant masses in order to get elected/wield power. There has to be a better way to do this - I think that there should be some sort of political aptitude test that has to be taken before someone can vote.

Fixed. This country is full of people that are well aware about what is going on. They are either too lazy or busy to start giving a damn.

It didn't use to be like this. At some point within the first 20 presidents, they figured they had some sort of divine right like a king and the people accepted this. That is they accepted having a face to their political system, someone who they vote in to give the system some personality. Someone they can directly look up to or blame instead of pointing fingers in a congress with hundreds of individuals. I think Andrew Jackson stretched his muscles quite a bit as president when congress upheld a treaty with some Native Americans in Georgia/SC (can't remember) to keep their land, but against checks and balances, Jackson sent the military out there to march them all out regardless of what congress or the Judicial branch had said. The public didn't have a problem with this, and we still don't have a problem with all the personal agendas subsequent presidents carried out.

We may have a problem, but our voices are never heard. Blame the public servants.

Our system is better than an autocratic one. Tell a fucked up country in Africa, or Cuba or South America that democracy is worse than a dictator. At the very least, our government is so bureaucratic that it can't pull off something terrible like, say, Stalin, because of all the paperwork involved. Government's just suck in general, I think.

I read recently that the founding fathers didn't intend this country to be a democracy . They actually intended it to be a republic, which is a government by laws instead of just by people. I'm not sure if that's relevant, because the you're talking about democracy in the modern American world, not the founding fathers' version, but I think it's worth mentioning.

True. At least, right now. My point is that the continued downward spiral of intelligence in this country will lead to a very fucked up government. That is why we need to do away with voting NOW (I'm basically advocating a revolution).