What do you think of changing the demographic of a country to win elections?

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: odolvlobo on November 11, 2020, 01:56:41 AM

Quote from: B1tUnl0ck3r on November 10, 2020, 10:09:43 AM

We can all agree, basically, that an easy way to win an election in a democratic country - is to import foreign people who support the same ideology as those importing them... or to export those disagreeing with it. What do you think of this democratic strategy to win elections?

Easy? I don't think it is easy at all. If you are a presidential candidate in the U.S., you would need to import 160 million people in order to guarantee a win. Good luck!

If your platform is mainstream in one of the major parties, you will only need to import enough people to make up for the lost swing voters.

_Miracle

hero member

Activity: 912

Merit: 661

Do due diligence

We already do this at the district level in America, it's called "Gerrymandering" (I'm against it).
The electorate as it now stands in America can easily create winners without the popular vote, something I hope we can eventually move away from.

As a side note and example:
California has 55 electoral votes of 538 and we voted Biden by over 63% (11+ million Biden vs 6+ million Trump)
However if you were were to split the state in 1/2 let's say somewhere around Sacramento and up as The North you could end up with a north red state and blue south or
coastal blue vs inland red (and yes there are groups that would like to partition ((split up)) California).

In 2016 Clinton won the popular vote by 2+ million
Al Gore in 2000 brings back memories of hanging chads in Florida

Chato1977

member

Activity: 1162

Merit: 58

Quote from: B1tUnl0ck3r on November 21, 2020, 07:33:42 AM

Quote from: CryptocurencyKing on November 12, 2020, 07:18:39 AM

It's really said that these things happens within a democratic system of government. Democracy is supposed to be a government of the people by the people in which case, the power is always with the people but then, any step taken to influence the decision of the people to favour a candidates political ambition is simply you (the candidate) pulling strings that pushes the people to a tight spot where they aren't able to make that decision. Hence, the candidate just succeeded in imposing himself or herself on the people. This is so wrong.

You've got to let the people have their perceptions of you without constraining them to take decisions not prior taken into consideration. The people sees what goes on and so, they are always able to see ways of taking the best decision but when this is influenced it results in riots, protests and revolution in the nearest future.
* You don't stand by your promises, you create a room for trouble
* You stand by your promises to a community of common belief's, you divid your people
Which is unlikely to be what is expected from any governance.

all democracy fail ultimately... most people are dumb, and the few able are divided between good and evil... when the good people let the evil ones rule, not so long after the said democracy collapses. What can the dumb people do? Educate themselves? It's hard...

If you’re speaking of democracy, yes, democracy will fail every time because it will immediately divulge into totalitarianism because in democracy, you have a tyranny of the 50.001% and the 49.991% are the losers every-time. That is why we have a republic, and a republic cannot work without an absolute fixed reference point. Without that, it cannot work. That’s what we’re making war against right now, we have the laws of our republic which are rooted in the laws of God which demand you cannot cheat. And then we have the laws of the evil one which attempts to break the natural laws of God which are as fixed, the natural political laws of God are just as unbreakable as are the laws of physics and spefically the laws of gravity, as that’s what affects as most.

B1tUnl0ck3r

sr. member

Activity: 854

Merit: 277

liife threw a tempest at you? be a coconut !

Quote from: CryptocurencyKing on November 12, 2020, 07:18:39 AM

It's really said that these things happens within a democratic system of government. Democracy is supposed to be a government of the people by the people in which case, the power is always with the people but then, any step taken to influence the decision of the people to favour a candidates political ambition is simply you (the candidate) pulling strings that pushes the people to a tight spot where they aren't able to make that decision. Hence, the candidate just succeeded in imposing himself or herself on the people. This is so wrong.

You've got to let the people have their perceptions of you without constraining them to take decisions not prior taken into consideration. The people sees what goes on and so, they are always able to see ways of taking the best decision but when this is influenced it results in riots, protests and revolution in the nearest future.
* You don't stand by your promises, you create a room for trouble
* You stand by your promises to a community of common belief's, you divid your people
Which is unlikely to be what is expected from any governance.

all democracy fail ultimately... most people are dumb, and the few able are divided between good and evil... when the good people let the evil ones rule, not so long after the said democracy collapses. What can the dumb people do? Educate themselves? It's hard...

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: odolvlobo on November 11, 2020, 01:56:41 AM

Quote from: B1tUnl0ck3r on November 10, 2020, 10:09:43 AM

We can all agree, basically, that an easy way to win an election in a democratic country - is to import foreign people who support the same ideology as those importing them... or to export those disagreeing with it. What do you think of this democratic strategy to win elections?

Easy? I don't think it is easy at all. If you are a presidential candidate in the U.S., you would need to import 160 million people in order to guarantee a win. Good luck!

nope.
THIS BECOMES THAT
00 00 00 000 000
00 00 00 000 000
XX XX XX XXXX XXXX
XX XX XX
XX XX XX XXXXXXXXXX

both are 3 areas where combined its twelve 0 eighteenX thus you would think X wins overall
first 'this' is 3 areas of four 0 six X where 3 areas side with X

second 'that' is 3 areas. where 2 states are six 0 and four X and a areas of 10X meaning in this case overall 3area majority side with 0 (only one X area)

welcome to the world of gerrymandering. no votes need to change. just the plotlines of which groups sit in which area.

if you look at a polling jurisdiction/district on a map. and if it looks more like a crack in a wall shape/river and less like a square/rectangle. you know your government is doing gerrymandering

agan husaeni

full member

Activity: 532

Merit: 116

Democracy is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation. Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but sometimes the concept still misunderstood and misused in election. in the election time , how you will import / export people ? you dosnt have authority for doing that, and there are regulations governing it.

CryptocurencyKing

hero member

Activity: 1288

Merit: 504

It's really said that these things happens within a democratic system of government. Democracy is supposed to be a government of the people by the people in which case, the power is always with the people but then, any step taken to influence the decision of the people to favour a candidates political ambition is simply you (the candidate) pulling strings that pushes the people to a tight spot where they aren't able to make that decision. Hence, the candidate just succeeded in imposing himself or herself on the people. This is so wrong.

You've got to let the people have their perceptions of you without constraining them to take decisions not prior taken into consideration. The people sees what goes on and so, they are always able to see ways of taking the best decision but when this is influenced it results in riots, protests and revolution in the nearest future.
* You don't stand by your promises, you create a room for trouble
* You stand by your promises to a community of common belief's, you divid your people
Which is unlikely to be what is expected from any governance.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: B1tUnl0ck3r on November 10, 2020, 10:09:43 AM

We can all agree, basically, that an easy way to win an election in a democratic country - is to import foreign people who support the same ideology as those importing them... or to export those disagreeing with it. What do you think of this democratic strategy to win elections?

Easy? I don't think it is easy at all. If you are a presidential candidate in the U.S., you would need to import 160 million people in order to guarantee a win. Good luck!

akram143

full member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 166

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Democracy means the leaders are elected by the people for the people so religion doesn't count here but this is a strategy to win the election for sure.If it is possible for the leaders to do such things then definitely they will try to do, and politician never care about the morals,we stupid people only do.

B1tUnl0ck3r

sr. member

Activity: 854

Merit: 277

liife threw a tempest at you? be a coconut !

We can all agree, basically, that an easy way to win an election in a democratic country - is to import foreign people who support the same ideology as those importing them... or to export those disagreeing with it. What do you think of this democratic strategy to win elections?

For example you are muslim candidate in a non muslim country, and you will seek to remove others faiths and import more muslims to win !

Is it democratic? Or even legal or moral in your country?

Topic: What do you think of changing the demographic of a country to win elections? (Read 216 times)