ptochocracy

If, in some democratic nation, the votes of the poor were given more weight, would the distribution of wealth automatically even out over time?

this is gay & the argument was retarded

!CATHARSIS!

>>40

The feeling is mutual.

>>41

Agreed.

with all the niggers voting the straight D ticket we already have this pretty much

>>1
Poor already get more votes, because in most countries majority is poor.

Representative Democracy is a fraud: you pick among several pro-Israel politicians, who spent budget helping Israel and moving jobs to Indian sweatshops, instead of creating opportunities at home.

>>44
Poor already get more votes, because in most countries majority is poor
That's the theory. In practice, however, the mass media are busy brainwashing the people into voting against their own best interests.
The people needs some real education. Fat chance they'll ever get it, tho, cos that would change the system. Can't have that.

>>2,3
To me, it first sounded like "ruled by Ptah"… :-P
>>43
If you're gonna bump an 8 year old thread, how'bout having something intelligent to say?

>>45
mass media are busy brainwashing the people into voting against their own best interests.
Voting is an illusion. In practice all candidate were approved and nominated by economic elites. I doubt you personally know Obama or Bush, so you are voting for a blackbox.

>>46
Isn't there this invention called "voting history"? Last I heard, it was sufficiently public to be somewhat usable; for starters, it confirms why I wouldn't vote Republicrat anytime soon.

>>47
Any history won't make you to personally know candidate and those behind him.

Consider a bottom-up scheme when you nominate candidate from your neighborhood into the district government, which in effect nominates a mayor from it's members.

Here Mafia can go to district level government and bribe enough of your candidates to nominate their own mafia boss as a mayor, and your city is now mafia run.

In top-bottom, multi-party party representative democracy, bribery is even easier.

>>48
Ahem, knowing a candidate's voting history shows what kind of decisions he (or, realistically, his paymasters) has made in the past;
- If consistent, it gives a clue as to where his heart (or rather, purse) is, and where he's likely to be in the future.
- If inconsistent, take another look. He may well be a flip-flop, but he may also have reconsidered the political terrain as it changes. Or he changed sponsor. It's which it is, that decides how trustworthy he's likely to be.