[phillip1882]

i really like to OP's idea for testing for intelligence. i also found the election bee an interesting idea.
a few further tips.
allow the alternative vote. when it's clear the candidate you desire isn't going to win, your vote goes to the second most desired candidate.
if we are going to have districts, which we currently do, allow mathematics to determine the districting. one approach is the split line method. place the shortest line that cuts a population in half, and continue doing so until you have the right number of districts.

[Qfwfq]

Folks, what it comes down to is that we like it to all depend on the people, let them choose which poison they prefer to swallow.

If you don't want them to swallow any poison the answer is excellent education. In many modern countries it is considered a fundamental while there are some (and increasingly) where it appears to be the greatest of priviledges. Most people are able to judge good and bad if a bit of sense is knocked into them and if only the take the care to follow matters public. These things are what make the difference between good and bad democracy.

As for Ratiocracy, who decides about who decides ... about which the criteria for eligibility ought to be?

Chaz, on 07 February 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

Why should those who are incapable of making good decisions be allowed to vote? You can come up with any 'equal rights' babble you want but the truth of the matter is allowing everybody to have a say in something ESPECIALLY when the majority have no idea what they are voting on, submit to peer pressure, or just fell for a expensive political campaign that brought about the illusion of competency is just irrational.

It seems like your Government Class is lengthy but, for whenever you get back from it:

Well, universal suffrage is not formally an essential feature of democracy and it was uncommon before quite recent times. However, there are arguments for it and not only against it. The main argument of those who oppose it is for the right of vote to follow from paople having interests to defend. The argument for it is that the lack of these can depend on not having any say in politics. So it goes round and round and universal suffrage is so that all can fight for their opportunities.

lawcat, on 10 September 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

Finally, as Qfwfq pointed out, there is already a fourth branch of government--the administrative branch.

Law, you twisted my words, that's not what I said. Neither would I call it accurate.

lawcat, on 10 September 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

Yes, they are under the executive branch for appointments, and sometimes under legislative, but they have discretion to administer the state matters, to interpret law, and judge.

I don't know all details of how it works in your country, but usually administration is a large part of the executive power. What discretion bureaucrats have descends from the politically elected power (including law, in a great part). Over here it definitely isn't the way you say it and I doubt it quite like that in hte U. S.