408 replies to this topic

[The Progressive]

It is most amusing that Flow was utterly silence on the fraudulent outcome of the Republican Iowa primary, lol.

[Raidne]

FLOW - Okay, so really the issue is that you are opposed to things that have became law in 1993, and other things that were renewed in 2006. One of those was first enacted in 1982, and the other was passed with no intention that it be permanent in 1965.

Fine, seems like a reasonable position to me. I personally almost didn't get to vote when I was 18 because a third party registration organization never turned in my information.

Don't get me wrong, I'd vote in favor of all of these things, mostly because I just don't see why not, and because I think it's perfectly workable to have a discriminatory result standard. I might support changing the pre-clearance thing, which I imagine I'd take a beating for here if anyone knew what it was.

I have no problem with ID requirements where you can also get a free ID. Otherwise it's a poll tax.

Edited by Raidne, 09 April 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt, on 09 April 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

It is most amusing that Flow was utterly silence on the fraudulent outcome of the Republican Iowa primary, lol.

Why?  It looked like a gigantic, embarassing clusterfuck to me, which all you guys pointed out already.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Raidne, on 09 April 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

I have no problem with ID requirements where you can also get a free ID. Otherwise it's a poll tax.

I agree with that.  You've got to make it easier to get I.D.'s, and its got to be free.  I've said before on here (which likely was forgotten) that if you're going to do that, it has to be in conjunction with an affirmative effort on the part of the government, perhaps involving mobile I.D. locations, to get people I.D.'s.

[lockesnow]

This is the first time in the last day I've seen the site alive, and not something from the week before the ACA went to the supreme court!

Sivin, on 08 April 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Ah, before I logged into this new thread I was hoping that maybe Raids had actually advocated a little Heinlein-ean government structure. Too bad... I honestly feel that only those who meet a pre-set intelligence standard should be given the privilege of voting. Too often I've seen people saying "I'mma vote Republican/Democrat because Obama/Bush is a Communist/Fascist." That's a small example, but gets the point across. It's disturbing to think that fools who listen to Talk-Radio and believe what they hear actually have as much power as I do in deciding who ruins our country. For those who might not have noticed, I'm a bit of an elitist.

Wow.  That's horrific.  

Any sort of pre set intelligence standard is anathema to me. I love that fools who listen to Talk Radio have the same vote as the fools who listen to Bill Maher.  The franchise has to be vast and unchecked, imo, by standards of education or intelligence.    

Why is it so many lefties think they're smarter than everyone else.  I like hearing a diversity of views, even when I disagree with them most of the time.  I don't think I should go around depriving people of the right to vote because I've made some random assertion that they're not as smart as me, or that I don't think they're smart enough.

And a huge problem with intelligence tests is that they're so easy to rig.  Look at the history of IQ tests.  These were used to prove that immigrants and others were "inferior" to your "smart" trueborn citizen and thus it was okay to deprive immigrants of rights.  But what did those IQ

[Lord O' Bones]

Sivin, on 08 April 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

It's disturbing to think that fools who listen to Talk-Radio and believe what they hear actually have as much power as I do in deciding who ruins our country.

That's the glorious nature of our nation. Morons, maybe even you yourself, all have the ability to help ruin our country.

[Triskele]

Yeah - There is no justification for IQ limits on voting.  Sure, we all have that "these fucking idiots shouldn't be allowed to even vote!" moment, but it's an emotion that needs to be ignored.

I know Churchill's quote is cliched and overused, but there's a reason for that:  "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Let's say I count myself to be relatively clever and reasonably well-informed.  Even so, it is a certainty that I'm dead-ass wrong about at least a few things.  There must be room for debate, and it must be all-inclusive, because we are all dead-ass wrong about a few things no matter how reasonably well-informed we may be (the exception being The Limecat who is never wrong).

Limiting voting rights on any metric besides age is a nasty slippery slope.

[Sci-2]

Quote

Why is it so many lefties think they're smarter than everyone else. I like hearing a diversity of views, even when I disagree with them most of the time. I don't think I should go around depriving people of the right to vote because I've made some random assertion that they're not as smart as me, or that I don't think they're smart enough.

I think in general, people on the right and left are too innumerate to handle the democratic process, and the people they elect are also similarly unqualified to do so. There have been some mentions of this by the non-humanities intelligentsia. One econ prof quipped that a portion of the bail out money should be used to teach economics to Congress.

There are probably a host of other subjects beyond logic/economics/statistics that it would behoove the populace to know. The US Politics threads alone has shown me that I need to up my legalese for example.

[lockesnow]

I'm astonished the above post made it through.  I accidentally posted before I was done writing and then the board was down for the rest of the day.  Now to see if I can read the rest of the thread.

[Horza]

The answer to morons is not disenfranchisement, but compulsory voting.

That way low-info voters cancel themselves out every which way and they and ultra-partisans can't be mobilised to swing elections their way.

On the downside, it does turn campaigning into a dull, dispiriting attempt to bribe and cajole the apathetic swing voters who define every election, but I think the price if worth it in terms of reducing the number of ultra-crazy candidates and switching emphasis away from mobilising your base with loony rhetoric and stirring up partisan grievances.

[TrackerNeil]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 09 April 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

One concern I have is that, for awhile now, more and more people are claiming that elections are "fixed" or "fraudulent'. That is alleged by both parties, and I think that belief is dangerous. Because once a significantly large minority believes that elections are being stolen, the ballot box is no longer an alternative.

Do we have any reason to think that signficantly large minorities actually believe elections are frequently stolen? And that such belief leads to some harmful consequence? Although I am sure you could find some chunk of Americans who think elections are stolen half (or more) of the time, you can also find many who think Obama is a Musim born in Kenya, blah blah. Americans harbor all manner of strange and silly beliefs - never forget the Crazification Factor - but we shouldn't base policy on crazy premises. We should base it on evidence.

BTW, I think it's interesting you brought up bank fraud. I'd be curious to compare the frequency of bank fraud with that of voter fraud, which we know almost never happens to any significant extent.

[Lord Mord]

I agree that IQ tests and even, per se competency qualifications of any kind are pretty repugnant -- in fact, how is that even a question?  For me, the temptation isn't to force people to agree with me, but just not to be fuckwits who want my government hands off their MediCare or who think "the President should be an American, not a Muslim".

[Seli]

Are the Gerrymandered districts important for the Presidential elections as well?

Talking about voter disenfranchisement and perhaps even fraud those would be a bit more important than any of the small fry that results from some wrong registrations.

edit: apparently only in two states that are so small it does not matter, with a proposal in Pennsylvania that would have affected the electoral college dead in the water. So not a problem for presidential elections, only in some other ones.

Edited by Seli, 10 April 2012 - 06:31 AM.

[IheartTesla]

Politicians are the problem, not the voters. Maybe we should have more rigorous requirements for our politicians than these po-faced ways to limit the electorate. Otherwise its garbage in garbage out.

[Lightning Lord]

Sivin, on 08 April 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Ah, before I logged into this new thread I was hoping that maybe Raids had actually advocated a little Heinlein-ean government structure. Too bad...

I honestly feel that only those who meet a pre-set intelligence standard should be given the privilege of voting. Too often I've seen people saying "I'mma vote Republican/Democrat because Obama/Bush is a Communist/Fascist." That's a small example, but gets the point across. It's disturbing to think that fools who listen to Talk-Radio and believe what they hear actually have as much power as I do in deciding who ruins our country.

For those who might not have noticed, I'm a bit of an elitist.

Screw this.  I love to think I am more intellectual than the hillbilly hordes that want Govmint outta der Mediker, but those people have as much say in their government as I do.  Their opinion is no more or less valid than mine (though mine is assuredly more informed and correct )

If a government of the imbeciles, by the imbeciles, and for the imbeciles is what happens, so be it.  I prefer that to an elite cadre that decides all.  I don't know much, but I know that over there, there be dragons.

ETA: Also, I am starting to think Tesla/Bowie is a prophet.

Edited by Lightning Lord, 10 April 2012 - 06:24 AM.

[Ormond]

Seli, on 10 April 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Are the Gerrymandered districts important for the Presidential elections as well?

Gerrymandered districts could only be important in Presidential elections in those states where the electoral vote is not "winner take all" but where electoral votes are assigned to winners of individual congressional districts. And since only the two fairly small states of Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes this way, there are only five electoral votes total that could possibly be affected by gerrymandering.

http://www.fairvote.org/maine-nebraska

(Sorry, didn't see that Seli had edited his or her own post about this, but I guess I won't erase the above in case someone wants to look at the link.)

Edited by Ormond, 10 April 2012 - 08:05 AM.

[Lightning Lord]

Given the nature of recent and the predicted nature of immediately future elections...don't you think those five electoral votes are kind of important?

[Raidne]

IheartTesla, on 10 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Politicians are the problem, not the voters. Maybe we should have more rigorous requirements for our politicians than these po-faced ways to limit the electorate. Otherwise its garbage in garbage out.

Don't really think so. Right now, the choice for President is between a multi-cultural lawyer with degrees from Columbia and Harvard who graduated magna cum laude, who was the first black president of the Harvard law review, published a best-selling memoir on race relations, was a fellow and then constitutional law professor for 12 years at the University of Chicago law school, directed Project Vote in Illinois, practiced civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, was the founding chairman of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge, and served seven years as a state senator, three years as a United States Senator, and four as President vs. a successful businessman who attended Stanford, successfully managed a crisis during his missionary period in France, graduated wtih highest honors from Birgham Young, was one of the first graduates of Harvard's dual law/MBA program, had a very successful and innovative career as a management consultant with Bain, single-handedly making that organization an industry leader, followed by a very successful term as Governor of Massachusetts and an unsuccessful bid for the 2004 Republican nomination for President.

Both are moderates, successful leaders, and have clear and understandable ideas about how to make the American economy stronger. These ideas have real and identifiable differences, but both have support from experts.

A person on the fence between a socialist-leaning government assisted economic recovery and a capitalist-leaning free market economic "cleansing" as a necessary prerequisite to a meaningful, sustainable recovery should be really, really happy about their choices.

The problem is the media and the campaigns, which put out information that the voting public responds to. So no, we, the electorate, are the problem. We have two really great, totally respectable candidates and all we can talk about is how one guy transports his dog on vacation and can't make up his mind about what to have for breakfast and the other guy is secret Muslim with an anti-American agenda.

We're getting better choices than we really deserve, IMO.

As a moderate liberal, I'm thrilled with the Obama Administration with the glaring exception of civil liberties and the security state. FLOW, as a moderate conservative (which he is, IMO, despite what you all seem to think) must be totally thrilled with Romney, setting aside some misgivings he might have about the guy as a campaigner.

Edited by Raidne, 10 April 2012 - 08:14 AM.

[Lightning Lord]

Why would you conclude that the problem is we, the electorate?  And not they, the media?  If they put out better information, do you think so lowly of the electorate that they wouldn't respond positively? (honestly asking...I've been gone too long to know what it's like to actually be in the US during an election cycle)

[Seli]

Thanks Ormond. My post was part genuine question, and partly an opening for a larger view on voter enfranchisement. And I felt I could try and answer the question myself as well. But I did not come across the site you linked to. (his post)