Interesting Question as far as voting.

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Pril » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:19 am

I was thinking about this today and wanted to get your guys input:

Should someone who is on welfare be allowed to vote? My initial thoughts are if "the people" are supporting you then you shouldn't have a say in how those peoples lives are run. But I'm interested in your guys thoughts.
The best of WTF statments of '06
--------------------------------------------------------
Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'
Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'
Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Sarvis » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:13 am

What about having a say in how your own life is run?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Corth » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:24 am

Interesting question. From a legal perspective obviously they have the constitutional right to have their vote counted. But from a 'right and wrong' perspective it's something to think about. You are viewing welfare recipients as basically wards of the state. Kind of like - as long as you are living in my house and eating my food at my dinner table, you live by my rules. That actually appeals to me quite a bit. Especially when you consider the ramifications of a system where more than half the people don't contribute anything at all. They have a vested interest to maintain the status quo - it almost becomes impossible to take anything away from them.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:38 am

Yes, the vote was designed in the formulation of our government to be an equalizer between different classes of our society. While it is counterintuitive to give someone power over the lives of others when they are providing for that person, other issues come into play concerning the formulation of government. Yes, people who are being provided for should not have control over those providing for them. However, MANY people receive government assistance in some form or another. We ALL benefit from some government service, be it defense or simple record keeping of property rights.

Since we all benefit in some manner from what is provided by others, in our type of government, all people should have some say.

People who have no say whatsoever are slaves. The vote is supposed to be a guarantee by our government that none of our citizens could be completely powerless.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Pril » Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:08 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Yes, the vote was designed in the formulation of our government to be an equalizer between different classes of our society. While it is counterintuitive to give someone power over the lives of others when they are providing for that person, other issues come into play concerning the formulation of government. Yes, people who are being provided for should not have control over those providing for them. However, MANY people receive government assistance in some form or another. We ALL benefit from some government service, be it defense or simple record keeping of property rights.

Since we all benefit in some manner from what is provided by others, in our type of government, all people should have some say.

People who have no say whatsoever are slaves. The vote is supposed to be a guarantee by our government that none of our citizens could be completely powerless.


Obviously everyone uses a mutual pot for different things that the government provides. The question is if you don't contribute to the pot should you make decisions for those that do.
The best of WTF statments of '06

--------------------------------------------------------

Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'

Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'

Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Pril » Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:09 pm

Sarvis wrote:What about having a say in how your own life is run?


If you are able to run your own life then you shouldn't be living off of others hard work. If you are unable to run your own life then clearly you shouldn't have a say in it.
The best of WTF statments of '06

--------------------------------------------------------

Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'

Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'

Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Kindi » Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:14 pm

Anatole France wrote:The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Pril » Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:50 pm

Kindi wrote:
Anatole France wrote:The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.


I'm not talking about cutting out welfare or government programs. I'm talking about the peoples right to choose how a country is run when they aren't contributing to that countries overall finances.
The best of WTF statments of '06

--------------------------------------------------------

Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'

Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'

Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Kifle » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:20 am

In essence, it's pretty much analogous to allowing your children to help manage your household finances. A) they aren't educated or mature enough to handle the responsibility and B) they don't actually bring anything to the table financially. In a household with the available funds to live but children were at the wheel, the household would be broke within 2-3 months. And that is basically what seems to be happening in this country. "Oh, shit, we shouldn't have spent all that money. Hey, china, can you help us out." Unfortunately, with the same idiots running the finances, or voting for different idiots to do the same thing, the country will continue to make the same mistakes -- only in different ways.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Pril » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:38 am

Kifle wrote:In essence, it's pretty much analogous to allowing your children to help manage your household finances. A) they aren't educated or mature enough to handle the responsibility and B) they don't actually bring anything to the table financially. In a household with the available funds to live but children were at the wheel, the household would be broke within 2-3 months. And that is basically what seems to be happening in this country. "Oh, shit, we shouldn't have spent all that money. Hey, china, can you help us out." Unfortunately, with the same idiots running the finances, or voting for different idiots to do the same thing, the country will continue to make the same mistakes -- only in different ways.



Good analogy Kifle.
The best of WTF statments of '06

--------------------------------------------------------

Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'

Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'

Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:43 am

Well said Kifle. I keep thinking that you, Kifle, and many other people like you who identify with social liberal philosophies have attached yourselves to the economic liberal party out of correlation. "Oh, they are Liberal, so am I", and subconsciously aligned yourselves with their mentality and platform. Now many of you (I keep thinking yourself included) are realizing the abject failure that is liberal economic philosophy. You guys wanna be social liberals, that's a whole different thing.

In my mind it's the same thing as the Tea Party (regardless of what many think or what many Tea Party people actually are). The Republican party is a failure, fuck off. Let's have more "normal" non-politician people be elected to see if that helps the country out. The fact that the Tea Party was formed, exists and is having success is a CLEAR sign of hope in my mind. Even if some retards and corrupt bastards come out of this, the important thing is that people have realized that career politicians, people who have never held an actual normal job, should NOT be elected to public office, regardless of political affiliation. Those are the ones who have ruined the country, and from both "parties".
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Pril » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:47 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Well said Kifle. I keep thinking that you, Kifle, and many other people like you who identify with social liberal philosophies have attached yourselves to the economic liberal party out of correlation. "Oh, they are Liberal, so am I", and subconsciously aligned yourselves with their mentality and platform. Now many of you (I keep thinking yourself included) are realizing the abject failure that is liberal economic philosophy. You guys wanna be social liberals, that's a whole different thing.

In my mind it's the same thing as the Tea Party (regardless of what many think or what many Tea Party people actually are). The Republican party is a failure, fuck off. Let's have more "normal" non-politician people be elected to see if that helps the country out. The fact that the Tea Party was formed, exists and is having success is a CLEAR sign of hope in my mind. Even if some retards and corrupt bastards come out of this, the important thing is that people have realized that career politicians, people who have never held an actual normal job, should NOT be elected to public office, regardless of political affiliation. Those are the ones who have ruined the country, and from both "parties".


Amusingly enough my dad has always said that those that can run this country don't want to deal with the politics and those that want to deal with the politics can't run this country.
The best of WTF statments of '06

--------------------------------------------------------

Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'

Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'

Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:01 am

im not sure but im pretty sure that alot of people on welfare dont bother voting anyways.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:10 am

Yup Mike.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Sarvis » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:53 am

Teflor: Credit where it's due... well said.

Kifle: not a great analogy. Voting is just a voice, not control. For instance, when we were teenagers do you think our parents would have been poorly served to listen to our input when buying a computer for the family?

Even today many kids know more about technology than their parents.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:16 am

Pril wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Yes, the vote was designed in the formulation of our government to be an equalizer between different classes of our society. While it is counterintuitive to give someone power over the lives of others when they are providing for that person, other issues come into play concerning the formulation of government. Yes, people who are being provided for should not have control over those providing for them. However, MANY people receive government assistance in some form or another. We ALL benefit from some government service, be it defense or simple record keeping of property rights.

Since we all benefit in some manner from what is provided by others, in our type of government, all people should have some say.

People who have no say whatsoever are slaves. The vote is supposed to be a guarantee by our government that none of our citizens could be completely powerless.


Obviously everyone uses a mutual pot for different things that the government provides. The question is if you don't contribute to the pot should you make decisions for those that do.

They don't make decisions, they contribute a vote (which is real power, but at this moment the haves still have more power). Those wanting to avoid giving the non-contributors a real voice - try to limit the number of poor.

It's a societal tool against slavery.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:21 am

Kifle wrote:In essence, it's pretty much analogous to allowing your children to help manage your household finances. A) they aren't educated or mature enough to handle the responsibility and B) they don't actually bring anything to the table financially. In a household with the available funds to live but children were at the wheel, the household would be broke within 2-3 months. And that is basically what seems to be happening in this country. "Oh, shit, we shouldn't have spent all that money. Hey, china, can you help us out." Unfortunately, with the same idiots running the finances, or voting for different idiots to do the same thing, the country will continue to make the same mistakes -- only in different ways.

However, the haves typically have no love for the have-nots in any society, or vice-versa. Huge problem with your analogy.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby kiryan » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:26 am

the right to vote is integral to being equal regardless if you are actually equal in a practical sense.

however it is important to note that the constutition... and the supreme court exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. When the constitution is shredded and becomes meaningless (we're pretty much already there when 99% of laws are authorized under the commerce clause), then you have real problems with giving everyone an equal vote.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:23 pm

People on social welfare? No, that's not a good criteria. Social welfare isn't necessarily unemployment, there are thousands of families on WIC where one or both parents are employed (at low wage) and paying taxes. Besides, there are all sorts of people living in America who receive government assistance... crackheads on welfare, college students getting GI Fund tuition support, farmers under the Farm Bill, the CEO of GM, anyone who works for Halliburton. Social welfare status doesn't match up one for one with "useless fucks who provide nothing to society," which makes it a poor criteria.

Personally, I wouldn't mind voter registration requiring a Civics test, the way driver registration requires a driving test. It would probably require a Constitutional amendment, but I see no reason we shouldn't require voters to at least understand the process they're voting into.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Sarvis » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:28 pm

Ragorn wrote:the CEO of GM, anyone who works for Halliburton.


You know, you may have something there...

Personally, I wouldn't mind voter registration requiring a Civics test, the way driver registration requires a driving test. It would probably require a Constitutional amendment, but I see no reason we shouldn't require voters to at least understand the process they're voting into.



Because it becomes retardedly easy to disenfranchise voters that way. Think about it, southerner's would just vote to get things like "what are grits" on the test and suddenly NY is just straight out of the election. :P
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:08 pm

Grits are a delicious hot grain-cereal type of dealie that you eat with butter and salt. Also, I'm from New York City.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Sarvis » Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:16 pm

Ragorn wrote:Grits are a delicious hot grain-cereal type of dealie that you eat with butter and salt. Also, I'm from New York City.


Don't think you'd be voting any time soon. :P (Hint: Grits are ground up corn.)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:48 pm

Corn is a grain, but thanks for trying.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Disoputlip » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:07 pm

This debate scares me. Many years ago you had to be a farmer ie. own land, and male ofcourse. (I am talking Denmark) to vote.

All others where not deemed suited to have knowledge about the world, and was therefore not ok to vote.

That meant people on welfare, and workers on farms could not vote.

I don't see how anyone would want that back. What would be next? That old people can't vote on issues concerning the future, that people without a certain income can't vote?

I want to go the other way, reduce the right to vote down to age 12 or 15. Then polititians would be forced to listen to that group also.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Sarvis » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:10 pm

Ragorn wrote:Corn is a grain, but thanks for trying.


Well, that's somewhat open for debate: http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... -or-grain/

However, it's NOT a "type of dealie." It's ground up corn. And you don't necessarily eat it with butter and salt.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Corth » Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36 pm

Interesting that this topic seems to transcend political ideologies.

A self interested Democrat would want to give welfare recipients two votes because they are beneficiaries of large government and more apt to vote for Democrats. Conversely, a self interested Republican would want to take votes away from the poor as they are less like to vote Republican. And yet in this thread you have Kifle and Ragorn who are generally left of center seeking to limit voting rights based on certain criteria, and Teflor and Kiryan (with some reservations) defending the right to vote for all citizens.

I'm with Kiryan on this one. The right of all people to vote is integral to the principle of equality that the country is based upon. BUT so is recognition of private property rights. If politics becomes a process of deciding how exactly we are going to arbitrarily redistribute the nation's wealth around then it is troublesome for welfare recipients to have the right to vote. They can keep voting themselves benefit increases to the detriment of the productive classes.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Kindi » Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:00 pm

ya because rich ppl have no reason or ability to vote money into their pockets
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Ragorn » Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:52 pm

Corth wrote:If politics becomes a process of deciding how exactly we are going to arbitrarily redistribute the nation's wealth around then it is troublesome for welfare recipients to have the right to vote. They can keep voting themselves benefit increases to the detriment of the productive classes.

Except that that's how our political system has been for decades, except replace "welfare recipients" with "corporations."

Everyone in our country votes to their own benefit - that's the point of the system. Christians vote for Christians so they can impose Christian-based legislation on everybody else. Poor people vote for politicians who promise them money. Corporations lobby for politicians who promise them money. Gun owners vote for politicians who favor gun freedom. Debating taking away one social class's right to vote based on the idea that they would try to vote themselves benefits is arbitrary and silly.

I think the only restriction I would support is a registration test which assesses a citizen's knowledge of the political process. You could argue that such a test would discriminate against the poor, because they have less access to education, but I would counter by saying that lack of education about the political system SHOULD be an obstacle to voting as a part of it. And of course, because I'm a dirty leftist liberal communist, I think the government should print up primers for free distribution that EXPLAIN the political process so citizens who don't understand it can learn about it. Similar to the driver's manual you can pick up for free at the DMV, just a 16-page illustrated guide that explains the three-party system, term limits, and the functions of each major office.

At that point, if you can't learn enough about the system to functionally comprehend it, I have no sympathy if you lose the right to vote until you do.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Disoputlip » Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:02 pm

One thing I would support in the US would be 1 person, 1 vote.

Right now some votes count as more than double of other votes. Because of how districts are made.

It is almost embarassing how presidential candidates "give up" in a state, because every vote doesn't matter.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Kifle » Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:07 pm

Ragorn wrote:People on social welfare? No, that's not a good criteria. Social welfare isn't necessarily unemployment, there are thousands of families on WIC where one or both parents are employed (at low wage) and paying taxes. Besides, there are all sorts of people living in America who receive government assistance... crackheads on welfare, college students getting GI Fund tuition support, farmers under the Farm Bill, the CEO of GM, anyone who works for Halliburton. Social welfare status doesn't match up one for one with "useless fucks who provide nothing to society," which makes it a poor criteria.

Personally, I wouldn't mind voter registration requiring a Civics test, the way driver registration requires a driving test. It would probably require a Constitutional amendment, but I see no reason we shouldn't require voters to at least understand the process they're voting into.


While that may be true, welfare status with some type of extra criteria would be applicable. For instance, the GI Fund implies the recipient did more than just pay taxes -- they served their country in a way regular tax payers did not. I don't think they would fall into the "non-contributor" status. It is fine if you want to argue the point as it was intended, but tossing in things like college students getting subsidized loans, ex-military (VA/GI Bill/Etc), and farmers becomes nothing more than a strawman.

Now, how easily it would be to exact the criteria is debatable. How realistic it would be is also debatable. Now, I'm sure a few would fall through the cracks, but the utility of such an act, due to its outcome, would outweigh the possible disenfranchisement of those unfortunate enough to be wrongly denied (based on principle). And, ultimately, I would imagine most of them would stop caring once they begin to enjoy the outcome of such an action.

The civics test is a good idea, but we can imagine the same type of disenfranchisement associated with welfare selection. For instance, people that understand concepts better than they do memorizing facts. Those with test anxiety would also be falsely removed from the voting pool. Functional illiterates may also fall into this category. Second, this would most likely have to be a multiple choice test. Any good test taker would be able to easily pass this without actually knowing anything. Without some type of essay question, any test is worthless by design and shows nothing with regard to actual knowledge. Therefore, this, if it were done correctly, would be nearly impossible to complete in any semblance of a timely fashion or cost effectiveness.

I suppose one way to negate the need for a test would be to completely overhaul the campaign design. Imagine the federal government sending packets to every household. These packets would contain a typed essay by each candidate, stating their platform, with no name attached. The essays would be numbered, and the ballot forms would have numbers associated with the essays. This way, party affiliation would be meaningless. To avoid experience issues, there would still be a party system, and the party would be responsible for voting their own candidate to be ran. There would be no other campaigning other than these packets. Money is no longer an issue, smear campaigns are no longer an issue, racism, sexism, and religious background are no longer an issue (outside of their platforms).
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby kiryan » Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:41 pm

We tried election tests / registration back in the ages of slavery... it was not a good idea. The supreme court in citizens united recently said somethign to the effect of: if the government can restrict political speech they will do so in such a way that benefits keeping them in power. I'm going to exaggerate, but the only place you can go by instituting a "fitness" check for voting rights is towards disenfranchisement of those without power which eventually leads them into some kind of slavery.

Diso's post is spot on... In the old days you weren't allowed to vote unless you owned land because without land you were assumed to not know anything about how the world works. Thats the model of slavery, feudalism or worse. China probably makes the argument that only people of sufficient love for their country can serve in politics.

Everyone in the USA should have more civics lessons, and should read if not study the constitution. I'm sure more kids read grapes of wrath than the constitution in public school. For example, did you know the words "separation of church and state" do not exist in the constitution? I didn't know that (also I haven't 100% verified that). Its been implied through jurisprudence and the founders beliefs, particularly franklin, but you will not find those words written the constitution. I bet 99% of americans believe its in the constitution, and I don't mean implied, but actualyl written.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Ragorn » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:24 pm

While that may be true, welfare status with some type of extra criteria would be applicable. For instance, the GI Fund implies the recipient did more than just pay taxes -- they served their country in a way regular tax payers did not. I don't think they would fall into the "non-contributor" status. It is fine if you want to argue the point as it was intended, but tossing in things like college students getting subsidized loans, ex-military (VA/GI Bill/Etc), and farmers becomes nothing more than a strawman.

He didn't say he wanted to deny voting rights to people who didn't contribute to society... he said he wanted to deny voting rights to people who were on government assistance. I'm just pointing out how asinine that is.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:39 pm

Disoputlip wrote:One thing I would support in the US would be 1 person, 1 vote.

Right now some votes count as more than double of other votes. Because of how districts are made.

It is almost embarassing how presidential candidates "give up" in a state, because every vote doesn't matter.

We have a Republic in the United States to ensure that one geographical region's concerns don't overshadow another's. There's nothing embarrassing about a small town upstream NOT being voted out of water rights by the big city down the river.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:45 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Disoputlip wrote:One thing I would support in the US would be 1 person, 1 vote.

Right now some votes count as more than double of other votes. Because of how districts are made.

It is almost embarassing how presidential candidates "give up" in a state, because every vote doesn't matter.

We have a Republic in the United States to ensure that one geographical region's concerns don't overshadow another's. There's nothing embarrassing about a small town upstream NOT being voted out of water rights by the big city down the river.



Except that

A) The votes are distributed by population in the first place, so the big city still has the bigger voice
B) If you're really talking about cities, the parties in charge just have to properly gerrymander the districts so that they can control the water rights
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:59 pm

Do you know the difference between senator and congressperson?
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby kiryan » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:43 pm

Diso. I've always liked the compromise of senate and house. I think its ingenius. You can represent and weigh in on subjects based on population and based on equality between states. No offense, but I think you lack perspective in this area.


Denmark, 16,000 sq miles, 6 million people.

Alaska, 700k people, 600,000 square miles
Montana 1 million people in 150,000 square miles.
Oregon, 4 million people, 100,000 square miles
Los Angeles has 10 million people in 4000 sq miles

Now, do you think Los Angeles should tell Alaska, Montana and Oregon what to do? Nationally or locally? Do you think that Los Angeles has ANY perspective on life whatsoever on Alaska where its light 24 hours a day in the summer and dark 24 hours a day in the winter?

With 1 person 1 vote, nothing matters except what matters to Los Angeles. How would you like Los Angeles telling Denmark how to live?

In another scenario 1 person 1 vote scenario. I go to special education meetings for my daughter at her public school. They put 1 teacher, 1 special educatin teacher, 1 aide, 1 autism expert, 1 special education department representative, and the principal on her "team" then they want to have decisions "made" by the entire team. If its a vote, thats 5 to 2 if both parents are at the meeting. Is that a reasonable way to make decisions? Do I need to start bringing my 6 kids to the meetings so they can vote for me?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:03 am

kiryan wrote:In another scenario 1 person 1 vote scenario. I go to special education meetings for my daughter at her public school. They put 1 teacher, 1 special educatin teacher, 1 aide, 1 autism expert, 1 special education department representative, and the principal on her "team" then they want to have decisions "made" by the entire team. If its a vote, thats 5 to 2 if both parents are at the meeting. Is that a reasonable way to make decisions? Do I need to start bringing my 6 kids to the meetings so they can vote for me?

Heh, Team Do-What-The-Government-Employees-That-Don't-Want-To-Work-Harder-For-Your-Daughter-Tells-You-To-Do.

This sounds pretty familiar. Kind of like the $1,000 fine for not buying the products government tells you to you can all thank Obama for passing.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Disoputlip » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:07 am

Hmm, after some thought about your Alaska example I totally understand your point.

What I think annoys me is not so much the fact that some states have more relative votes than others. It is the point where if you win a state, then you get all the votes in that state.

Therefore presidential candidates give up once they are loosing or winning a state, because it isn't important if the win by 80 or 90%.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:47 pm

Disoputlip wrote:Hmm, after some thought about your Alaska example I totally understand your point.

What I think annoys me is not so much the fact that some states have more relative votes than others. It is the point where if you win a state, then you get all the votes in that state.

Therefore presidential candidates give up once they are loosing or winning a state, because it isn't important if the win by 80 or 90%.

It is very frustrating to Americans when a president is elected that actually loses the popular vote. However, we have a multicultural society across vast and greatly different geographical locations.

The EU is setup much the same in that small nations in many cases have as much say as big nations when it comes to collective decision making.

The same can be said about how the UN is formulated, where nations with less than 20% of the world's population have more than 80% of the votes in the general assembly.

This type of power distribution is not uncommon in world power systems and is not unique to the United States. The philosophy the United States was founded upon was one in which we try to avoid the tyranny of the majority. What we end up with are presidents that didn't have the most votes and a legislative body that provides disproportionate representation. Proof that the simple majority is not in charge, kind of :) Is it? Not really, but it's a good basis upon which a nation ensures justice for all, if it can manage to do so.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby kiryan » Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:39 pm

You should consider that the states elect the president through the electoral college, not the people. In a few states, they do split the electoral college votes by %, but I believe in most states its not "legally required" for the electoral college representatives to vote inline with the state vote. I don't think any have ever voted opposite of what they're supposed to, but the possibiltiy exists. The people can vote 100% for candidate X and the electoral college rep can literally legally choose candidate Y.

So, I'm not a big fan of the electoral college for electing the president, but I haven't studied it. It feels kind of like checks and balances in that you can override the will of the majority in the same way that the constitution protects the people from the tyranny of the majority. At first look though, I would support a % based distribution of electoral college votes, but I don't really know.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Interesting Question as far as voting.

Postby Vigis » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:52 am

I moved to Australia for work last November and had the privilege of being here for an election. Here, they only vote for the party, then the party elects the prime minister. Additionally, each and every person of legal age is REQUIRED to vote. If they do not show up at the registry on voting day, they are fined for not voting.

I'm still not sure if I agree on the way they do their politics here, but many of the Aussies I have spoken with about politics have the same jaded philosophy as many centrists in the US: It doesn't really matter which party is in power; they are all going to screw you - the only difference is the lies they tell you when it is over.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests