Who Cares? Show

SteveG's picture
Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Story / Multimedia / Appearance, Audio

Steve and Dr. Dan Lion tried to find some common ground about the historical groove of vote sizing.

Dr. Dan Lion Show

Listen to:
Dr. Dan Lion
Mo-Fri, 11am-12pm

Who cares about life,
humor, or ideas?

dr.dandlion@yahoo.com

Get the Flash Player to see this player.


Rating

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (4 votes)

Comments

Reacting on Dr. Dan Lion's comment

6.6

You said:
"The problem is, as Stalin said, who COUNTS the votes."

With Vote Sizing, we think that those who suffer most from the outcomes of cheated elections should be given the powers to control the election counting process.

With Vote Sizing in mind, my questions are: why would the guy who counts votes unconstitutionally give more votes to the guy who has more money? Why would a wealthy guy corrupt the vote counting guy to illegally deviate all the decisions in his favour? Don't they simply want to succumb to the idea that the more money you have the more power you deserve?

If you take medication that is meant for the sick and give to a healthy guy to control, he might end up selling it to someone who has money. Do you think the sick himself, who feels all the pain and agony, will sell the medications and die if put under his control?

What I mean is those who count elections are simply filled with the spirit of greed and they don’t feel the impact and aftermath of a stolen election. And to my opinion they are not using the powers given to them to count the elections wisely, as well as those who use money to corrupt the programmer are not using their money wisely.

But if we make it constitutional that, the more money you have, the less power you deserve, and vice versa, believe me, people will learn to use their money/powers wisely.


Yes - someone has to count the votes!

 I agree with you Awafong. The point that Stalin made about rigged elections is, and will always be, relatively moot. Someone always has to count the votes. There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. The closest we come nowadays is a jury, and this is only possible because it's a very small group of citizens with a lot of time. In any election, there will always be important decisions which take place before, and during the elections which skew the outcome - just as I outline on my tyranny page - districting, preliminary campaigning, campaigning, party divisions; these are all mostly beyond the control of you and me and yet have a huge bearing on the outcome.

The idea we promote here of inverse-wealth vote sizing is one more way to adjust the system to try and bring it *closer* to democracy.

Post new comment

 
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.