|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2001 : 22:41:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, yes, that's fine for people who don't have to work for a living.
Yes well, unfortunately thats how our democracy was designed. To have an intellegent, well informed electorate making the decisions.
By the way, I do work for a living...
Regards,
Greg.
|
 |
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 03:51:31 [Permalink]
|
I live in a country where everyone over 18 who isn't insane has to vote, and we don't have as many problems as the voluntary US voting system, although that may be due to other factors.
As for a Heinlein style system I have only seen the movie, but from what I have heard about the book it would still be a bad society to live in.
The biggest advantage of compulsary voting is that it makes the moderates vote, whereas in a voluntary system you usually get a far higher proportion of extreamists voting.
Had compulsary voting been around in the 2000 election Bush would not be in power, and neither would any of his cabinet.
Considering that only 22% of Americans identify themselves with the religious right and most of the others are against them, compulsary voting would be a good way to keep them from getting power.
Very few people here consider voting to be any different from taxes, and most resent the idea of conscription (which has been done away with in all countries that are any good) far more then they resent the idea of voting.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 07:41:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Had compulsary voting been around in the 2000 election Bush would not be in power, and neither would any of his cabinet.
Hmm, I've been hearing reports that polling numbers show that if people could vote again, most people would still vote for Bush. Every age group but the 65+ crowd, actually.
By the way, if you don't mind asking, what country are you from?
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 08:06:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As for a Heinlein style system I have only seen the movie, but from what I have heard about the book it would still be a bad society to live in.
The movie bore almost no resemblance to the book. The society depicted in the book is probably impractical to the degree shown, but the ideas are intriguing and valid, particularly the discussions of what makes a good citizen and what motivates people. Heinlein also addresses the mistaken stereotypes of the military professional.
It's a short book and easy to read. I recommend it for fun and edification.
quote:
The biggest advantage of compulsary voting is that it makes the moderates vote, whereas in a voluntary system you usually get a far higher proportion of extreamists voting.
The vote of an uneducated, unmotivated moderate is not necessarily better than the vote of an extremist.
quote:
Had compulsary voting been around in the 2000 election Bush would not be in power, and neither would any of his cabinet.
I disagree, particularly with the Electoral College. Gore would at most have picked up Florida (and that's not a sure thing), but Bush would have almost certainly gained Missouri (which had more hanky-panky and questionable voting practices--Democrat perpetrated, by the way--than Florida), New Mexico, and enough fringe states to have overcome the Florida loss. Even Illinois would have been tossed back up in the air because of the irregularities shown in Chicago to have favored Gore.
quote:
Considering that only 22% of Americans identify themselves with the religious right and most of the others are against them, compulsary voting would be a good way to keep them from getting power.
1. Define "against them." The majority of Americans simply don't concern themselves with the extreme end of either political wing until the issues are thrust upon them.
2. We've been darn successful in keeping the religious right out of office without compulsory voting.
3. More importantly, it is not the intent of our system to keep anyone out of office, but to place in office those we think are best suited to serve. A major intent of the founders was to design a system that prevented the "tyranny of the majority."
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 06/15/2001 08:54:33 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 08:39:42 [Permalink]
|
Just a few odds and ends that have been nagging at me.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, yes, that's fine for people who don't have to work for a living.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes well, unfortunately thats how our democracy was designed. To have an intellegent, well informed electorate making the decisions.
By the way, I do work for a living...
Regards,
Greg.
Ditto ditto ditto.
Liberty's not easy, and authority comes with responsibility. Think. Learn. Make the time.
quote:
Instead of making it the law that everyone must vote, let's make it the law that the votes that are cast are all counted.
And lets start with Florida.
Aaaagh! You realize, of course, that this is over simplifying it? Please say yes.
I can't find it now, but someone way back at the start of this said he didn't want to vote, didn't need to vote, and forcing him to do so "violated one of the bill of rights."
He's right. He doesn't need to vote. I just wish he'd learn enough to know that there is only one Bill of Rights consisting of 10 amendments. The Constitution has more amendments now, but only the first ten constitute the B of R. And I hope this gentleman never complains about his representatives in government.
And one final nitpicky point: The U.S. is not a democracy. Never has a been. It is a Republic. I suppose the terms have become interchangeable, but in their truest sense there is a vast difference between them. The best reason to be glad for a Republic is summed up in this quotation from Edmund Burke, one of my favorite politicians from long, long ago:
"A representative owes his constituents not only his industry, but his judgment as well, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion."
Some of you will think this makes me and him an elitist, but I think the opposite, and Burke's record is the demonstration of it.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 10:47:02 [Permalink]
|
The media is not responsible, but the "consumers" of the media are. Interesting.
Also, you are right, the U.S. is, ostensibly, a democratic republic. The representatives are (supposed to be) answerable to the people sometimes, the Constitution most of the time, and reality the rest of the time. However, while the media is biased because of their corporate construction, and the think tanks are run by corporations, then a great deal of the time, the information that most of us will get is biased. Even if a representative is not on the take in some way or another, the world to them is presented in a certain way. There is only a limited viewpoint allowable in the present circumstances.
With some kind of a real "free press" one doesn't have to work so hard to get a realistic view of the world, while working two jobs and trying to have a life.
quote:
Yes well, unfortunately thats how our democracy was designed. To have an intellegent, well informed electorate making the decisions.
By the way, I do work for a living...
Regards,
Greg.
Ditto ditto ditto.
Liberty's not easy, and authority comes with responsibility. Think. Learn. Make the time.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 11:10:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
However, while the media is biased because of their corporate construction, and the think tanks are run by corporations, then a great deal of the time, the information that most of us will get is biased. Even if a representative is not on the take in some way or another, the world to them is presented in a certain way. There is only a limited viewpoint allowable in the present circumstances.
Good point. Thats why one must question the validity of information.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 14:32:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just wondering what you guys thought about this idea, and it's ethical and practical implications. I would imagine that the enforcement would be very costly. And what would the impact on campaigning be?
(Limit this to only Presidential, U.S. Congressional, and U.S. Senatorial elections.)
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/14/2001 13:10:53
At 1st glance I thought this is a great question but, consider this:
By not voting, actually one is voting, voting for 'None of the Above'.
Several years ago when I joined the Libertarian Party I swore I would never again vote for the lesser of two evils. And no matter how much I've been temped and worried the 'wrong' guy would win I have stayed true to my party.
I have NEVER missed an election since I have been able to vote.
This past run off for mayor of Los Angeles was a terrible race. I wanted neither of the two remaining people, but disliked one over the other so much I went back on my word and did vote for the least offensive one.
(Yeah Hahn!)
However had I gone into the voting booth and only voted for some of the other issues on the ballot and left the mayors vote blank, who would have known?
The other issues were so minor they weren't worth going to the polls.
What if no one voted and they had to pick better candidates?
Boycotte voting! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 14:52:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Several years ago when I joined the Libertarian Party I swore I would never again vote for the lesser of two evils. And no matter how much I've been temped and worried the 'wrong' guy would win I have stayed true to my party.
Ditto. Go Harry! 
quote:
However had I gone into the voting booth and only voted for some of the other issues on the ballot and left the mayors vote blank, who would have known?
The other issues were so minor they weren't worth going to the polls.
Here in good ol' Alabamy on the last ballot we had a vote to remove the ban on interracial marriages (it was in our state Constitution). It passed 60%-40%. This is pretty sad. But in all fairness, I believe that alot of the people who voted "No" to this really just didn't understand the question. (I talked about it with some of the, ahem, 'older' people that I work with, and this seemed to bear out my theory.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 15:11:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Several years ago when I joined the Libertarian Party I swore I would never again vote for the lesser of two evils
quote:
Ditto. Go Harry!
Thank you. Right on! Hi 5.
[quote]Here in good ol' Alabamy on the last ballot we had a vote to remove the ban on interracial marriages (it was in our state Constitution). It passed 60%-40%. This is pretty sad. But in all fairness, I believe that alot of the people who voted "No" to this really just didn't understand the question. (I talked about it with some of the, ahem, 'older' people that I work with, and this seemed to bear out my theory.
Everytime I talk to someone from the South and say I'm afraid to go there because I AM in an interracial marriage, they say, not to worry. But you see.........!
In defense of people who don't see it as moral or whatever, you have to understand, it's 'the way is was/is' for them. Just because it doesn't seem right to others doesn't mean it's not a valid point of view. That's why we have places like the Middle East and Ireland. |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2001 : 04:35:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hmm, I've been hearing reports that polling numbers show that if people could vote again, most people would still vote for Bush. Every age group but the 65+ crowd, actually.
Possible, but I have heard statistics that indicate that Democrats tend to do better with higher voter turnout and Republicans with lower voter turnout, so it may have helped, btw I'm from Australia if your interested.
As for the book and movie, what I have heard is that the movie bore little resemblence to the book and that there was pretty much no brutallity in it.
As for the military, I do respect those who join it and are willing to lay their lives on the line to defend a country, they tend to suffer the consquences of bad decisions, no matter what side they are on.
However I would not like to live in a military based society, there are problems in the military which are often overlooked.
Hitler was in the military and in fact he got a lot of support from there, he really didn't want to go to war now did he, otherwise he would have taken over Poland?
As for moderate voters, sometimes they can stuff things up, but most of them do want to vote for the best, and will tend to vote against extreamism on both sides.
As for voting practices, you would do far better to have the federal government take it all over, reduces the need to worry about stupid ballot papers.
As for against the religous right I meant, most people would not want them in power.
Have you heard of the CC 12% Method?
Less 50% of those in the US who are elligble to vote are registered to vote.
Less then 50% who are registered to vote actually do vote.
So they only need 12% of voters to vote for them to get into government.
Wont be long before they get that.
As for tyranny of the majority, it is a conservative and libertarian newspeak for taking what the rich stole from the poor and giving it back.
One has to realise that every government system will seem like a tyranny to someone, good government is reducing the amount of people who consider it to be tyranny, and reducing the severity of hte tyranny to those that do think it is a tyranny.
If there is an objective proof of tyranny it would involve majority of people thinking that said government is a tyranny.
In that case Tyranny of the Majority is an oxymoron.
If you don't vote, then those that do will have control over your life, maybe they could even make a law denying rights to those that don't vote, then you can just complain when they are making government bigger.
Democracy means power to the people, whilst the US is not a direct democracy the everyday usage of the term refers to both the direct and the representative (aka republic) types.
One of the key thoughts about voting is that if all the candidates are shitty, you should not put in an informal ballot (thats what we call it when someone doesn't fill the ballot paper our correctly here), but instead vote for the person you think is the least evil, or vote to keep the person you consider the greatest evil out.
Sometimes the only choice is a lesser of two evils, which is something that people have to realise, this is an unpleasent part of life we have to learn to deal with.
As for no one voting, someone will always want to vote, and those people will have power over you.
Not voting is never a wise course of action to take when you have the right to vote.
Even if only a minority vote, their laws would still be enforced.
Better voting education is needed, and better presentation of the issues would help, also a course in critical thinking should be required at schools.
Even if that isn't possible putting more emphasis on the scientific method in science classes would help.
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2001 : 06:29:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hitler was in the military and in fact he got a lot of support from there, he really didn't want to go to war now did he, otherwise he would have taken over Poland?
Actually, IIRC, Hitler did want to go to war, just not against the big powers, like Russia ATT. WRT Poland, he just took it over. He didn't forcebly(sp?) take over Austro-Hungary, they agreed to be apart of the Third Reich.
quote:
If you don't vote, then those that do will have control over your life, maybe they could even make a law denying rights to those that don't vote, then you can just complain when they are making government bigger.
Not here in the US. Basically, it'll either be struck down for being unconstistutional, which is MTL what'll happen, or someone will sue the guv'ment because of that law.
quote:
Not voting is never a wise course of action to take when you have the right to vote.
Why should I when there are idiots in office now, and the only people that do run are, IMO, idiots themselves.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." -Master Yoda |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2001 : 09:04:39 [Permalink]
|
I was being sarchastic about Hitler not wanting to go to war.
We don't know what hitler thought, but we know he didn't want to go up against the Brits until later, he was busy with the commies.
Which was probably a big mistake on his part, would have been more likely to win had he kept the peace with Stalin and went for England.
Then he could go for the USSR, had Japan not attacked the US then he might have been able to win WWII, which is a scary thought.
You seem to put a lot of faith in your constitution.
Fact is... it can be changed.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2001 : 19:38:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You seem to put a lot of faith in your constitution.
Fact is... it can be changed.
Wasn't it Washington who said something to the effect of: People will continue to tolerate evil as long as the evil is tolerable...
They decided that the constitution should allow the people to overthrow their government if it became oppressive...
Currently, the level of evil/incompetance is tolerable...
Voting is a responsibility...one that we should all take seriously.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 09:18:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You seem to put a lot of faith in your constitution.
Fact is... it can be changed
Yup. And yup.
quote:
However I would not like to live in a military based society, there are problems in the military which are often overlooked.
Neither would I, but the overlooked problems are no greater, and perhaps less so, than in the rest of society. My reasons for not wanting to live in a military based society have more to do with the implications of it rather than the shortcomings.
quote:
Have you heard of the CC 12% Method?
Yes.
quote:
As for tyranny of the majority, it is a conservative and libertarian newspeak for taking what the rich stole from the poor and giving it back.
No. Tyranny of the majority was a legitimate concern of the framers of the US Constitution, and they addressed it by that label in much of their writings about it ("The Federalist Papers", et al). Their ability to address it was limited by political efficacy, though, so it could not be eliminated, just ameliorated. Slavery was a tyranny of the majority.
quote:
If there is an objective proof of tyranny it would involve majority of people thinking that said government is a tyranny.
In that case Tyranny of the Majority is an oxymoron.
No again. Tyranny of the majority is only one type. You're describing tyranny of the minority, which is the despotic way. Then again, on my more cynical side, I think even the scenario you're describing can be true, and may even be true in the US now. It attains when the majority of the people get what they ask for and then complain about it.
quote:
One has to realise that every government system will seem like a tyranny to someone, good government is reducing the amount of people who consider it to be tyranny, and reducing the severity of hte tyranny to those that do think it is a tyranny.
I think I see what you're getting at, and I suppose I can live with this analysis.
quote:
Not voting is never a wise course of action to take when you have the right to vote.
Even if only a minority vote, their laws would still be enforced.
Better voting education is needed, and better presentation of the issues would help, also a course in critical thinking should be required at schools.
Even if that isn't possible putting more emphasis on the scientific method in science classes would help.
Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed. But not with the conclusion that the answer is mandatory voting. If a constituent wishes to abdicate their voting rights and grant my vote that much more sway, then so be it.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
