talk about hubris: how about htinking you can just up and claim checkmate. . . geez. . . (that why I didn't with my previous one)

Sheesh! Have you ever heard of hubris? Your post makes me profoundly grateful that democracy works against such arrogance. You are not omniscient, and you are not capable of making decisions that affect the lives of a quarter billion people.

I never claimed to be omnicsient, nor did I personally take the position as to which side is right, only that one of them is more right than the other.

oh yeagh? Oh yeagh?! Well 'your' post smacks of idealism (I hope you are picking up on the comical nature of that part), and idealism is far from realism. there will always be one side trying to gerrymander the district in their favor, one side changing the voting requirements in their favor, you can't get rid of it. universal sufferage does not get away from this. You can alway impose limits a certain way or deadlines for absentee ballots. . .theres no end ot it.

Hell no! The point is that the system should be neutral, and should not favor one faction over another.

how is universal sufferage neutral? What you are promoting is a different way of doing things that can be manipulated just as any other way. Besides, true universal sufferage would not have a citizenry requirement. and if it did, it woul dbe open to an administration granting citizenship biasly toward different group to get votes, and if it din't have a citizenry requirement it would be just plain insane because you woul let 2 billion chineese have a vote here.

Again there is a reason that the founding father imposes rules such as land ownership and being male. At the time this ensures better educated would be vote (notice this did not set out any typ eof curriculum). Was this far? No, certainly there were some pretty stupid landowners, and some pretty well educated female that could put them to shame, liek any criteria it wans't perfect but it prevented the problem of universa suffereage, that being completely ignorant or uininformed from being in the majority.

Universal democracy is the best practical solution to achieve that neutrality. Equal protection under the law, not the best protection money can buy.

no it is just another way you can rig the results in someone elses favor. for example, by letting people ote at younger ages, thus having universal sufferrage you end up with more liberal votes.

I've not yet stated my model for a voting system, I will do so in a new thread.

-Justin Kelly