• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global democracy (1 Viewer)

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
48,108
Reaction score
23,472
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
This is just a 'food for thought' comment, not a proposal, but. Look at what we've seen as individuals have led nations to cause great harm - Putin, Hitler, and many more. So Putin decided he wants to control Ukraine, and with his nuclear weapons, the world says we have to try to oppose him but the most we can do is cause great economic harm to the world - like cutting off 40% of Europe's oil - with whatever financial crash it causes globally to isolate him.

Imagine if the world got a veto power over leaders. So Putin claims Russia elected him; if some percent of the world votes 'no' to him, Russia has to pick again.

Again and again, leaders can cause great harm to other countries who get no vote.

It's interesting to think if the world could vote also. Instead of just having to have world wars or global economic crises or other ways to deal with the problems.
 
This is just a 'food for thought' comment, not a proposal, but. Look at what we've seen as individuals have led nations to cause great harm - Putin, Hitler, and many more. So Putin decided he wants to control Ukraine, and with his nuclear weapons, the world says we have to try to oppose him but the most we can do is cause great economic harm to the world - like cutting off 40% of Europe's oil - with whatever financial crash it causes globally to isolate him.

Imagine if the world got a veto power over leaders. So Putin claims Russia elected him; if some percent of the world votes 'no' to him, Russia has to pick again.

Again and again, leaders can cause great harm to other countries who get no vote.

It's interesting to think if the world could vote also. Instead of just having to have world wars or global economic crises or other ways to deal with the problems.
Ever increasing size and scope of government leads to a far less representative government, less apt to meet the electorate's needs.
You can see this in the EU government, which is little more than yet another layer of government overhead expense without any apparent benefits or advantages.
Much the same can be said for the UN.

No, I think the direction of less government, less government expense, less government impositions on the electorate is perhaps the better way forward.
 
Interesting but unenforceable.
 
Interesting but unenforceable.
Well, as a 'food for thought' topic, the practical issues aren't the topic, but in theory it might be enforceable, imagine a modification to the UN to conduct the global veto elections and to have the authority to have the world's forces enforce the results. For the same of argument imagine nuclear weapons have been eliminated. But it's getting off-track. It's more to illustrate the limitations of our current setup.
 
Well, as a 'food for thought' topic, the practical issues aren't the topic, but in theory it might be enforceable, imagine a modification to the UN to conduct the global veto elections and to have the authority to have the world's forces enforce the results. For the same of argument imagine nuclear weapons have been eliminated. But it's getting off-track. It's more to illustrate the limitations of our current setup.
I'm all for eliminating nuclear weapons. They suck all the fun outta war and diplomacy alike.
 
no, let's not have globohomo
 
I'm all for eliminating nuclear weapons. They suck all the fun outta war and diplomacy alike.
Admittedly eliminating them has a great cost. US forces are no longer as 'off-limits' to attack, for example. But the benefit is removing the threat of nuclear war.
 
no, let's not have globohomo
giphy.gif
 
do you know what that is? global homogeneity

Then type that, because you sounded like you went off on some bizarre tear about homosexuality, which actually would not be all that surprising for a Russian given how much homophobia there is there...
 
Then type that, because you sounded like you went off on some bizarre tear about homosexuality, which actually would not be all that surprising for a Russian given how much homophobia there is there...
well they are pushing homosexuality so.....
 
Can you describe what that term means, in your own words?

Liberals want to turn people into cartons of milk. Then they cannot resist our invasion.
 
well they are pushing homosexuality so.....

Wut? So when you said "globohomo", you did mean to make some insanely stupid claim about homosexuals and homosexuality? Neither this thread nor the term you misused in context because you did not know what it meant have anything to do with homosexuality. What an odd response to the subject.



PS: if you think someone else could be pushed into being sexually attracted to the same sex, then you think you could be as well even if you don't admit it to yourself. In which case you're bi, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The same can often be said about homophobia. Hence the term "closeted" exists...
 
True democracy is the only antidote to authoritarianism.
 
Wut? So when you said "globohomo", you did mean to make some insanely stupid claim about homosexuals and homosexuality? Neither this thread nor the term you misused in context because you did not know what it meant have anything to do with homosexuality. What an odd response to the subject.



PS: if you think someone else could be pushed into being sexually attracted to the same sex, then you think you could be as well even if you don't admit it to yourself. In which case you're bi, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The same can often be said about homophobia. Hence the term "closeted" exists...
the GAE is evil, of course there promoting sodomy
 
Ever increasing size and scope of government leads to a far less representative government, less apt to meet the electorate's needs.
You can see this in the EU government, which is little more than yet another layer of government overhead expense without any apparent benefits or advantages.
Much the same can be said for the UN.

No, I think the direction of less government, less government expense, less government impositions on the electorate is perhaps the better way forward.
The size of "Da Gummint" is directly related to the size of the political unit it governs.
 
Imagine if the world got a veto power over leaders. So Putin claims Russia elected him; if some percent of the world votes 'no' to him, Russia has to pick again.

What gives anyone in another country the right to vote for or against a country's leader(s)?

Are you talking about ordinary voters?

The 'veto a bad leader' system should be a strong international justice system.
 
What gives anyone in another country the right to vote for or against a country's leader(s)?

Not for, but to veto. Because leaders of countries can have a great effect on the world. Our policies can destroy democracy in another country, can enslave people in another country, can lead to war killing people in another country - and they get no vote. That's justice? Couldn't the world use some global say on terrible leaders?
 
Not for, but to veto. Because leaders of countries can have a great effect on the world. Our policies can destroy democracy in another country, can enslave people in another country, can lead to war killing people in another country - and they get no vote. That's justice? Couldn't the world use some global say on terrible leaders?

I already said how the world could and should have a say.

With all due respect, the idea has no legitimacy because there's no good reason for someone to have veto power over another jurisdiction.
 
I already said how the world could and should have a say.

With all due respect, the idea has no legitimacy because there's no good reason for someone to have veto power over another jurisdiction.
A 'strong justice system' would not serve the purpose.

You might not appreciate the need if you're in a powerful country rather than one affected by the powerful country. Powerful leaders have few constraints.
 
Implement it in the USA first as a proof of concept. What's the threshold... say if 60% of Americans don't like Bernie Sanders, he's no longer allowed to be a senator for Vermont? If they don't like DeSantis, he's out of a job? Make a national controversy out of every state's leaders, tit-for-tat vetoing, the whole shebang.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom