Shryke Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Shryke,If NOTA has no effect then how is it different from choosing not to vote? If it is no different than. Choosing not to vote then how is it of any utility?It's measured for one thing. Shit, if you wanna get fancy you can put a list of reasons for not voting and gather some data while your at it.Also there's many reasons it's different. For one, it forces you to go to the voting booth where most people will just vote anyway. The problem Scot is you assume all non-voters are objecting to the choices at hand rather then just being lazy or being busy or just not caring enough or all that. It also means vote caging basically disappears and vote caging is a HUGE problem in the US.It's not the same as not voting and it brings along all sorts of surplus utility with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 And again, what political system could claim any legitimacy if huge numbers turn out to spoil their ballots? It'd be a total farce.It's already a total farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 It's already a total farce.Which is why compulsory voting (with NOTA, sheesh :P ) must be the number one item of debate for the rest of the presidential campaign! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 This is the funniest thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Ze-ejTC7cRachel Maddow is convinced Herman Cain is actually performance art. That his entire campaign is a huge joke.Honestly, I can't decide anymore. It ... it could be true. Or he could just be really terrible at this and kinda dumb to boot.At this point, Herman Cain is either one of the greatest performers of all time or a really bad politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 He's certainly captured your imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Shryke,What excuss could people offer but pure apathy if NOTA ws available. Hell, if they liked no one their vote for NOTA could still have impact.Horza,True. That said it is my opinion that NOTA can give vent to popular frustration before it rises to the level of unrest. Hopefully, that would prevent violence.So if you don't vote, do you get fined? Or jailed? If fined, then you're going to be getting the poor disproportionately. If jailed...really? Locking people up for not voting?Given the percentage that does not vote, pissed off people might get swayed by some comedian's campaign to vote for him/her. Or maybe people will just, as a protest, vote for the first name of everyone listed. Or maybe they'll just intentionally gum up the works by voting really, really, slowly.Shit, if voting was mandatory, I'd refuse to vote just to be contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Shit, if voting was mandatory, I'd refuse to vote just to be contrary.Point: Missed.Irony Level: High. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 So if you don't vote, do you get fined? Or jailed? If fined, then you're going to be getting the poor disproportionately. If jailed...really? Locking people up for not voting?The article goes into this, but: traffic-sized fines and very seldom issued or enforced. Where are you coming up with jail from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rane Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 So if you don't vote, do you get fined? Or jailed? If fined, then you're going to be getting the poor disproportionately. If jailed...really? Locking people up for not voting?Given the percentage that does not vote, pissed off people might get swayed by some comedian's campaign to vote for him/her. Or maybe people will just, as a protest, vote for the first name of everyone listed. Or maybe they'll just intentionally gum up the works by voting really, really, slowly.Shit, if voting was mandatory, I'd refuse to vote just to be contrary.I don't know how it works in Australia, but here (Brazil) if don't show up (or justify not showing up) you get a fine of... ~$2. And if you don't show up for three consecutive elections, you lose your right to vote (you can get it back though) which has a lot of implications (can't work for the government, can't get a id or passport and several other bad stuff). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 The article goes into this, but: traffic-sized fines and very seldom issued or enforced. Where are you coming up with jail from?Traffic-sized fines are regressive. If you have money, they're nothing. If you don't, that might mean a bill not getting paid.If the fines are de minimus -- like the $2 in Brazil -- then they may as well not exist at all, and you really don't have mandatory voting as a practical matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Traffic-sized fines are regressive. If you have money, they're nothing. If you don't, that might mean a bill not getting paid.If the fines are de minimus -- like the $2 in Brazil -- then they may as well not exist at all, and you really don't have mandatory voting as a practical matter.Aww. And here I thought you were persuadable on the eminently conservative grounds that US citizenship is big on rights but low on responsibilities and the moderating effect of broadening the voting base on political discourse and it's practical advantage of guarding against motivated partisans swinging races towards extremes... :((And we don't have compulsory voting, we have compulsory getting-your-name-checked-off-the electoral-roll-on-or-before-election-day) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Aww. And here I thought you were persuadable on the eminently conservative grounds that US citizenship is big on rights but low on responsibilitiesI don't think that's a conservative position. Or at least, it's not the type of conservatism I support. The government exists to serve citizens, not the other way around. I oppose things like the military draft, "national service", etc.and the moderating effect of broadening the voting base on political discourse and it's practical advantage of guarding against motivated partisans swinging races towards extremes... :(I don't agree that forcing people to vote who otherwise wouldn't moderates the voting base at all. Why assume that non-voters would be more moderate than those who actually vote? Seems to me that those who don't vote are more likely to be disillusioned with the system, and therefore more susceptible to radical views rather than moderate ones. But that's just a guess. It could easily be the other way. But certainly, I'd expect that mandatory voting would result in more poorly-informed voters, on average.(And we don't have compulsory voting, we have compulsory getting-your-name-checked-off-the electoral-roll-on-or-before-election-day)That's fine if you guys want to have that. I just dislike the government ordering me to be anywhere without a damn good reason, and ordering me to show up somewhere just to have my name checked off a list doesn't qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Since voting is both mandatory and done on a day off and everything, the fines aren't a big deal anyway. Pretty much all the compulsory voter countries get turnout upwards of like 85%.Apparently the fines work without having to be very large. Seems to me that those who don't vote are more likely to be disillusioned with the system, and therefore more susceptible to radical views rather than moderate ones.Or they could just be fucking lazy or busy or what have you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Or unable to get off work on Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Traffic-sized fines are regressive. If you have money, they're nothing. If you don't, that might mean a bill not getting paid.I surely hope you keep this same concern about regressive obligations until 2012, when whatever Republican wins the nomination talks up the ultra-regressive flat tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I surely hope you keep this same concern about regressive obligations until 2012, when whatever Republican wins the nomination talks up the ultra-regressive flat tax.I support a flat tax -- meaning a single rate, but one with a large exemption to make it progressive.Actually, here's what I really think about taxation....I don't have a problem with people who risk capital making shitloads of money. Where I get antsy is when people who aren't risking any capital are making extremely high wages. So if you're going to push me for revenue increases, I'm much more likely to support higher taxes on wages earned above a certain point -- starting at $1M is where I think it makes sense. But I don't have any problem with owners of businesses or those who risk capital making much more than that, because those people are also taking the risk of loss. Wage-earners aren't. I'm not sure how to structure the code to achieve that, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 OK...here's what I think about taxation...Like you, I don't have a problem with people who risk capital making shitloads of money. Where I get antsy is when those people and their supporters conveniently forget that in this nation all risks are hedged by government guarantees, and all successes partially attributable to government-sponsored infrastructure. Any tax code should reflect these basic truths, and require that those who have been amply rewarded by the system pay into making certain that system works fairly and in the best interests of the majority of Americans, and not just the successful ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I know this is the politics thread so I don't need to remind anyone, but do yourselves a favor and vote.Also, do your country a favor and don't vote Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 OK...here's what I think about taxation...Like you, I don't have a problem with people who risk capital making shitloads of money. Where I get antsy is when those people and their supporters conveniently forget that in this nation all risks are hedged by government guarantees, No, they are not. There are a lot of people who have risked a lot of money on a business or idea and have lost it. Almost any time a company goes under, the owners/shareholders get little or nothing back in return. That is a lost investment.There are exceptions, such as the shareholders of GM/Chrysler, some people on Wall Street, or other beneficiaries of government loan guarantees, none of which I support. and all successes partially attributable to government-sponsored infrastructure.That infrastructure is available to all. Moreover, the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. Thus, your proportionate use of that infrastructure is farily accounted for by a flat tax, by which everyone pays the same rate of taxation based on income.Under the current system, nearly half the population pays only payroll taxes that go only to very specific benefit programs. Which means that even under the current system, which you consider insufficiently progressive, they pay nothing at all for all that infrastructure. Any tax code should reflect these basic truths, and require that those who have been amply rewarded by the systemThey are not "rewarded by the system". We don't vote on "rewards". You make the money that other people pay to you voluntarily, either via wages, purchases, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 What FLOW said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.