SaltSong @ SaltSong @startrek.website

Posts

3

Comments

699

Joined

5 mo. ago

One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer.

Yes, that is the general answer for who gets to vote. But as I describe, that doesn't guarantee fair.

To get what we think democracy means, we need as fair system, (who gets to vote) and a fair election. (votes counted properly)

But you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that a restricted voter population is a good thing. I'm arguing that it's still a democracy, provided it meets certain qualifications. I'm arguing that words have meanings, and that we shouldn't be letting 1960 anti-red patriotism trick is into thinking that "democracy" means anything more than leaders appointed by voting.

A bad democracy is still a democracy. An unfair democracy is still a democracy. A corrupt democracy may be a democracy, depending on the nature of the corruption.

And the Wright Flyer was an airplane.

I don't think something can rotate relevant to itself. If all of reality was the earth, and nothing else, how can you tell if it's spinning or not?

Please use small words if you try to answer this. I know a decent bit of applied physics, but once it turns to pure math, my head starts to swim.

Carefully trimmed sticker?

EDIT: Ah, I see you've handled it. Carry on, then.

Should be possible to just not plug them in.

But I have no idea why they are there in the first place.

This depend very much on how you define "fair," and how it is used in context.

So, I would say a system that only let's white male landowners vote is not "fair" because only an elite group gets to vote. But if their votes are counted properly, and their decision upheld, the election is "fair," and it's a democracy.

On the other hand, a system that lets everyone over 18 vote is arguably "fair." But if the votes are not counted correctly, and the results are false, then the election is not "fair," and you don't have a democracy.

To further the thought, I suppose that if the voting populating is a small enough percentage of the general populating, then it is not a democracy, rather than just a bad democracy. Not sure where that line is, though.

Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of ‘democracy’ with Carrot, and had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straight away.

-Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

He had such a way with words, he did.

Yea. If we counted popular vote, rather than EC, that would not qualify him for president.

I'm not actually sure what happens if no candidate gets a majority.

It's not a good democracy, no. The fact that Trump is not following the rules suggests that it isn't a democracy at all, since we are voting for stick figures, not leaders. But he was elected fair and square, at least until we find evidence otherwise.

And again, "democracy" doesn't mean "good," or "fair" or "virtuous." We are none of those things right now, weather we are a democracy or not.

I'm prepared to argue that fake voting doesn't count.

we count ancient Greece as a democracy, don't we?

Last I checked, democracy didn't mean "fair," it ment that the leaders were voted into power.

I'm not suggesting that America before Trump was a paragon of virtue. But our corrupt leaders and wealthy oligarchs made America powerful to serve their own ends.

Trump is not serving the ends of American oligarchs. He's serving the ends of Russian oligarchs.

I think that if space itself is what is rotating, then speed of light limit does not apply. But if it's everything in the universe orbiting, as it were, a central point, then it would.

But if it is space itself rotating, then that would suggest some objective frame of reference outside the universe. Wouldn't it?

That's a good metric.

I note that you have wisely refrained from asking if a device will make it easier. I do not want any such device at this time, thank you.

Is it unsettling? I'd find out more expected, myself. Everything is data mining me, and selling the information. Way of the world.

I don't like it, but it's not unsettling.

It's not a one-size fits all, that's for sure. But I have no subscriptions to anything, and I wouldn't describe anything I do with "work flow."

it’s absolutely insane to conclude that Russia controls western governments.

Maybe not governments in general, but Trump and his party specifically, doesn't seem too insane.

Don't even have to do crime. You can usually email the author, and they will send you a copy, quite legitimately.

I've done it myself a few times.

In the old scam, I believe you world indeed get a book with the names of everyone who paid to get a book with the names of everyone who paid to get the book.

Welcome to the joke.

Why does it always come back to chickens?