Election

[MC Habber]

PTH said:

Very low turnout means that small extremist groups can get their way though.... look at the Kansas school board that banned talk of evolution, that was a small group of convinced people who voted while the majority "who didn't want to get involved for lack of knowledge" sat at home.

There's no easy solution, other than everyone learning and voting about everything, and we just don't have the time for that.

True, but if the people who don't vote don't have the basic knowledge to make their vote representative of their beliefs, than I don't think their votes are really missed.

[MC Habber]

PTH said:

Very low turnout means that small extremist groups can get their way though.... look at the Kansas school board that banned talk of evolution, that was a small group of convinced people who voted while the majority "who didn't want to get involved for lack of knowledge" sat at home.

Actually, I think that example only works if you assume that the uninformed will mostly vote for the status quo. That might be a valid assumption, but if the voting public has a large component that always votes for the status quo without really considering the options, then it's pretty tough for anything to improve.

[PTH]

MC said:

Actually, I think that example only works if you assume that the uninformed will mostly vote for the status quo. That might be a valid assumption, but if the voting public has a large component that always votes for the status quo without really considering the options, then it's pretty tough for anything to improve.

I'd rather have institutions holding us back until an idea has made its way across the public though; if there's a real need for change people will know about it, if there isn't then usually it means the status quo will do.

[MC Habber]

PTH said:

I'd rather have institutions holding us back until an idea has made its way across the public though; if there's a real need for change people will know about it, if there isn't then usually it means the status quo will do.

I'd say there's been a real need for change in many areas for decades, but things have mostly stayed the same.... It was known in the 80's that drastic changes were needed in environmental policy, but it still hasn't happened (at least not nearly enough), and we may now have reached the point where it's too late to do anything about it. Sometimes change is needed quickly, not after enough disasters have occured for the general public to become aware of the problem and make it an issue.

I would support a policy of fines for people who don't vote, provided they had to pass some kind of knowledge test. I do think democracy is strongest when everyone participates, but I don't think just voting for 'your party' without knowing the issues, or voting based on imaginary information, really counts as participating.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

MC said:

I'd say there's been a real need for change in many areas for decades, but things have mostly stayed the same.... It was known in the 80's that drastic changes were needed in environmental policy, but it still hasn't happened (at least not nearly enough), and we may now have reached the point where it's too late to do anything about it. Sometimes change is needed quickly, not after enough disasters have occured for the general public to become aware of the problem and make it an issue.

I would support a policy of fines for people who don't vote, provided they had to pass some kind of knowledge test. I do think democracy is strongest when everyone participates, but I don't think just voting for 'your party' without knowing the issues, or voting based on imaginary information, really counts as participating.

That is really radical!
Just because people don't vote for your candidaate or issue, doesn't invalidate their vote.
Voters don't have to vote for a candidate for a specific reason either.

1. Vote for a candidate because you agree with him on most issues.
2. Because you like his cute face.
3. Because you oppose his opposition.
4. Because you feel strongly about a single issue like abortion.
5. Because your Union or PTA favors him.
6. Because your spouse told you to.
7. Because you believe environment is more important than economics
8. Because a hollywood actor told you to.........

There are thousands of reasons to deliver your vote for a specific candidate and in a free society we are free to register our vote for whatever reason we deem appropriate.

Most citizens never read a single bill passed in parlaiment. They rely on interpretations from the press, sound bites, comments by politicians, editorials, party affiliations, third party recommendations.

We are FREE to vote, not vote, and assign any rationale we deem appropriate for our preferences. I wouldn't want to lose that or have someone tell me to vote a particular way for a particular reason.

Intelligent people are backing both candidates. Some informed intelligent people support Ralph Nadar. How can I tell them that their vote is wasted and they are should support my candidate for my reasons. How can I tell anyone that a womans right to choose is more important than social security. Your priorities are yours, not mine.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

That is really radical!
Just because people don't vote for your candidaate or issue, doesn't invalidate their vote.
Voters don't have to vote for a candidate for a specific reason either.

1. Vote for a candidate because you agree with him on most issues.
2. Because you like his cute face.
3. Because you oppose his opposition.
4. Because you feel strongly about a single issue like abortion.
5. Because your Union or PTA favors him.
6. Because your spouse told you to.
7. Because you believe environment is more important than economics
8. Because a hollywood actor told you to.........

Some of those are pretty bad reasons to vote, but of course everyone has the right to vote for someone for any reason they choose. However, I find it hard to believe that someone who actually knows something about the policies of the different candidates would instead cast their vote based on appearance. "I think Bush handled 9/11 really well, I support the war in Iraq, and I like Bush's economic policies, but I'm gonna vote for Nader because Bush has a stupid haircut."

Democracy only works if people participate, and participation involves learning about the issues and casting a vote for the person/people/party you think would do the best job. If you really can't be bothered doing that, then you're free to pay your $50 fine every 4 years and live in oblivion.

[seventeen]

MC said:

I'd say there's been a real need for change in many areas for decades, but things have mostly stayed the same.... It was known in the 80's that drastic changes were needed in environmental policy, but it still hasn't happened (at least not nearly enough...

I wouldn't expect Bush and Cheney to go anywhere near that road. Too bad there isn't some way to adjust it, but I've always been disappointed that so many nimnulls have the same number of votes as me.....1. I really wouldn't care if so many people weren't so gullible. But that's the way it is.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

seventeen said:

I wouldn't expect Bush and Cheney to go anywhere near that road. Too bad there isn't some way to adjust it, but I've always been disappointed that so many nimnulls have the same number of votes as me.....1. I really wouldn't care if so many people weren't so gullible. But that's the way it is.

Yep. Democracy is just another patch on the Vedic wheel of Life. Gratefully embraced as an alternative to tyranny, strengthened and nurtured, gradually taken for granted, ultimately used and then discarded by a tyranny. And so on.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

MC said:

Some of those are pretty bad reasons to vote, but of course everyone has the right to vote for someone for any reason they choose. However, I find it hard to believe that someone who actually knows something about the policies of the different candidates would instead cast their vote based on appearance. "I think Bush handled 9/11 really well, I support the war in Iraq, and I like Bush's economic policies, but I'm gonna vote for Nader because Bush has a stupid haircut."

Democracy only works if people participate, and participation involves learning about the issues and casting a vote for the person/people/party you think would do the best job. If you really can't be bothered doing that, then you're free to pay your $50 fine every 4 years and live in oblivion.

We have our opinions on why we vote certain ways assigning higher priorities to certain issues.

Some people buy a car because the color is cool, has 350hp., gets good gas mileage, comes with a 5 speed or has a bitchin sound system.
I may think 350 hp. is way more than you need and you may think looks are subjective and shallow, but those are our opinions and we vote with our dollars.
I for one am glad that there isn't an arbitrary means test or subjective intelligence test or computer dictating who has and hasn't the right to vote. We've seen countries which tell the citizens who to vote for and the dictator garners 99% of the votes. Our system is imperfect but it works.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

We have our opinions on why we vote certain ways assigning higher priorities to certain issues.

Some people buy a car because the color is cool, has 350hp., gets good gas mileage, comes with a 5 speed or has a bitchin sound system.
I may think 350 hp. is way more than you need and you may think looks are subjective and shallow, but those are our opinions and we vote with our dollars.
I for one am glad that there isn't an arbitrary means test or subjective intelligence test or computer dictating who has and hasn't the right to vote. We've seen countries which tell the citizens who to vote for and the dictator garners 99% of the votes. Our system is imperfect but it works.

I couldn't disagree with your last sentence more vehemently. The American "system" is really a contest between 2 branches of the same organisation that represents the extremely wealthy minority. Despite their differences, Bush and Kerry are very much the same, and IMO, whichever one wins will probably make the world a more dangerous place. I think of the Democracts and Republicans, respectively, as corresponding to the political and military wings of the IRA (I'm exaggerating here...). Independant candidates with significant support (Nader for example) are not even allowed to be on the ballot in many states, are not allowed to participate in the debates, and do not benefit from the huge donations that the Donkey and the Elephant receive (for example, the $462,683 donated to the Democrats by JP Morgan Chase & Co, or the $419,516 donated to the Republican Party, also by JP Morgan Chase & Co).

How is restricting the number of candidates to two (carefully selected from the same elite group) any different than restricting it to one?

To me, this is not a democracy, and it's moving ever further from that supposed ideal at a frightening pace. Both parties have been using questionable tactics to disqualify from voting people likely to vote against them. In areas where the majority of the population votes Democrat, the Republicans will be sending thugs to the polling stations to disrupt the process by challenging people's registration. The delays this will add to an already slow process and the intimidation involved will discourage people from even showing up to vote, and cause many to get tired of standing in line and leave.

------------------
To reiterate what I said before, as far as I'm concerned you have the right to vote for whoever you want for whatever reason (something neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to believe), but

• Does George W. Bush support ratification of the Kyoto protocol by the USA?
  
• Does John Kerry favour more government involvement in healthcare?
  
• From what country did Osama Bin Laden orchestrate the 9/11 attacks?
  
• Is there any evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?
  
• Which two countries did American forces invade under the leadership of President Bush
  
• ETC.

IMO, if you can't correctly answer at least 5 out of 10 simple questions like those, then you forfeit your right to vote. Try again in 4 years.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Democracy

- the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives

- a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

- the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

- the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

*

I see no stipulations regarding intellectual capacity, moral fecundity, or philosophical principles being made of any citizen before he/she can participate in a democracy.

Guns are freely available, why not votes? Which counts more, or is more easily counted, a bullet or a ballot? Which is seen to have the greater impact by the general population? Talk or action? UN or invade?

I must say that it has been a long strange trip from Kennedy to Bush. Will the next US president be the Terminator (and all that implies)?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

MC said:

I couldn't disagree with your last sentence more vehemently. The American "system" is really a contest between 2 branches of the same organisation that represents the extremely wealthy minority. Despite their differences, Bush and Kerry are very much the same, and IMO, whichever one wins will probably make the world a more dangerous place. I think of the Democracts and Republicans, respectively, as corresponding to the political and military wings of the IRA (I'm exaggerating here...). Independant candidates with significant support (Nader for example) are not even allowed to be on the ballot in many states, are not allowed to participate in the debates, and do not benefit from the huge donations that the Donkey and the Elephant receive (for example, the $462,683 donated to the Democrats by JP Morgan Chase & Co, or the $419,516 donated to the Republican Party, also by JP Morgan Chase & Co).

How is restricting the number of candidates to two (carefully selected from the same elite group) any different than restricting it to one?

To me, this is not a democracy, and it's moving ever further from that supposed ideal at a frightening pace. Both parties have been using questionable tactics to disqualify from voting people likely to vote against them. In areas where the majority of the population votes Democrat, the Republicans will be sending thugs to the polling stations to disrupt the process by challenging people's registration. The delays this will add to an already slow process and the intimidation involved will discourage people from even showing up to vote, and cause many to get tired of standing in line and leave.

------------------
To reiterate what I said before, as far as I'm concerned you have the right to vote for whoever you want for whatever reason (something neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to believe), but

• Does George W. Bush support ratification of the Kyoto protocol by the USA?
  
• Does John Kerry favour more government involvement in healthcare?
  
• From what country did Osama Bin Laden orchestrate the 9/11 attacks?
  
• Is there any evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?
  
• Which two countries did American forces invade under the leadership of President Bush
  
• ETC.

IMO, if you can't correctly answer at least 5 out of 10 simple questions like those, then you forfeit your right to vote. Try again in 4 years.

I find your comments interesting because I shared them when I lived in Canada. I thought the Canadian system with, Liberals, Concervatives, NDP, Communists, Independants was much more democratic until I lived here for a few years.
The disintigration of the PC party in Canada and the automatic victories of the Liberals with 35% of the vote showed me that all the factions split the vote and instead of a choice there was a default winner. The lack of majority government and election by concensus, backroom dealings and the whim of the Governor General don't work in practice although in principle thay should.
The US needs to move from Electoral College to popular vote, and allow independants like Nader a chance, but otherwise the system works very well (Florida not withstanding.
There are many ways in which Canada is superior to the US, but overall the two party system here is more effective.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

I find your comments interesting because I shared them when I lived in Canada. I thought the Canadian system with, Liberals, Concervatives, NDP, Communists, Independants was much more democratic until I lived here for a few years.
The disintigration of the PC party in Canada and the automatic victories of the Liberals with 35% of the vote showed me that all the factions split the vote and instead of a choice there was a default winner. The lack of majority government and election by concensus, backroom dealings and the whim of the Governor General don't work in practice although in principle thay should.
The US needs to move from Electoral College to popular vote, and allow independants like Nader a chance, but otherwise the system works very well (Florida not withstanding.
There are many ways in which Canada is superior to the US, but overall the two party system here is more effective.

I don't like the Canadian system right now either. In fact, I believe the US is in theory more democratic in the way it appoints Supreme Court judges. But I think the political systems in both countries are broken, and the issue isn't which is more broken - both should be fixed. It may be true that the last couple of Canadian elections were won "by default," but it wasn't always like that, and may not be like that next time around. In the US, as long as the 2 major parties effectively control the whole democratic process, the people will not have a strong voice.

I've heard it suggested that the election would be more fair if instead of voting for one party, people ranked the candidates in their order of preference. This would also have the effect of limiting the influence of extremest groups. I think that idea could work, but it would require a more informed body of voters.

[MC Habber]

M. said:

I see no stipulations regarding intellectual capacity, moral fecundity, or philosophical principles being made of any citizen before he/she can participate in a democracy.

Then don't call it democracy, call it something else. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of informed citizens who can elect people to represent them. I'm not sure why democracy is such a sacred cow, given its shaky track-record, and given that what presently exists in the US is a far cry from it. If I'm not mistaken, prisoners are generally not allowed to vote. The same goes for people under the age of 18. As far as I'm concerned, a 17-year-old who knows a lot about and has given some thought to the issues of the day has more right to vote than a 30-year-old who thinks Osama bin Laden is only a character on Saturday Night Live.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

We are FREE to vote, not vote, and assign any rationale we deem appropriate for our preferences. I wouldn't want to lose that or have someone tell me to vote a particular way for a particular reason.

I feel the need to respond to this again. We all value our freedoms, and we get upset when someone threatens to take any of them away. But the irony is that FREEDOM is not FREE. Our society has evolved from one in which people did not enjoy the freedoms that we now take for granted, but it's not a one-way process. There's no reason we can't devolve and return to a system of strict totalitarian rule. In fact, the technological progress made in the last 50 years makes that a much stronger possibility than ever before. The point is that if we want to preserve our freedoms, we must act. We must think, and we must vote.

To argue that everyone is free to not vote is akin to arguing that we are free to not eat. Of course we are, but we can only go so long without eating before we lose all our freedoms completely. The same goes for voting. The maintainance of democracy has a cost, not only in the tremendous expenditure of money required to carry out the process, but also in the expenditure of time required of the citizens to make it effective. We must accept this cost or else watch our freedoms disintegrate.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

Then don't call it democracy, call it something else. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of informed citizens who can elect people to represent them. I'm not sure why democracy is such a sacred cow, given its shaky track-record, and given that what presently exists in the US is a far cry from it. If I'm not mistaken, prisoners are generally not allowed to vote. The same goes for people under the age of 18. As far as I'm concerned, a 17-year-old who knows a lot about and has given some thought to the issues of the day has more right to vote than a 30-year-old who thinks Osama bin Laden is only a character on Saturday Night Live.

Sounds like you're in favour of a dictatorship.

[MC Habber]

M. said:

Sounds like you're in favour of a dictatorship.

Dicatorship of the people, by the people, for the people.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

Dicatorship of the people, by the people, for the people.

But isn't that what having the Terminator and Jesse Ventura in office is all about?

To quote The Dead Kennedys - "Give me convenience or give me death." Sort of makes it sound like a 7-11 stick-up with fatalities is the American dream.

[MC Habber]

M. said:

But isn't that what having the Terminator and Jesse Ventura in office is all about?

To quote The Dead Kennedys - "Give me convenience or give me death." Sort of makes it sound like a 7-11 stick-up with fatalities is the American dream.

I don't really see the connection between requiring people to meet some minimal knowledge criteria in order to vote and electing a former Mr. Universe as president.

In fact, "Give me convenience or give me death" should be the mantra of people who don't vote, or who vote without any relevant knowledge.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

I don't really see the connection between requiring people to meet some minimal knowledge criteria in order to vote and electing a former Mr. Universe as president.

That's just it, democracy has no minimal knowledge criteria.

Dictatorships insist on voters knowing the right answers to questions put forward before one casts a ballot. They also ensure by "natural selection" that you can only vote for the right candidate.

[MC Habber]

M. said:

That's just it, democracy has no minimal knowledge criteria.

Dictatorships insist on voters knowing the right answers to questions put forward before one casts a ballot. They also ensure by "natural selection" that you can only vote for the right candidate.

I think the distiction is in where the questions come from. I would suggest they should be created by an independant, public comittee and probably approved by the major parties. Also, if at least 75% (say) of people are not able to pass the test then the results should be thrown out.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

I think the distiction is in where the questions come from. I would suggest they should be created by an independant, public comittee and probably approved by the major parties. Also, if at least 75% (say) of people are not able to pass the test then the results should be thrown out.

Sounds downright unconstitutional to me. In fact it smells of elitism and fascism to me. But nevermind, e. e. cummmings sums it up best for me:

pity this busy monster,manunkind,

not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victum(death and life safely beyond)

plays with the bigness of his littleness
-electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange;lenses extend

unwish through curving wherewhen until unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born-pity poor flesh

and trees,poor stars and stones,but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical

ultraomnipotence. We doctors know

a hopeless case if-listen:there's a hell
of a good universe next door;let's go

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Freedom implies that you are free to participate and free not to participate.
If you don't want to vote, you don't have to.
If you feel that you are not sufficiently informed you don't have to vote.
On my ballot on Tuesday there will be local school board members, judges, senators and yes, sheriffs and dogcatchers. There will be 15 referendums (propositions from Indian Tribe gaming to the Three Strike Amendment).
I will choose to participitate in the areas which concern me and where I feel that I am sufficiently informed, but choosing between a slate of people running for School Board Administrators is not something in which I want to participate.
I don't want to influence elections where I have limited knowledge and I don't want anyone to test my knowledge using their standards or coerce me to participate.

The Soviet Union had a Party of qualified voters who made the decisions and ran the elections.

[MC Habber]

Elitism for sure, if you use a rather loose definition of 'elite.' Is it a perfect solution? Not at all. In fact I'd hope it could be employed as a temporary measure - an improved school system should produce a general public that is better informed (on the whole) and reduce the need for such an admittedly drastic measure. But the trend seems to be towards a more brainwashed, more polarised, more ignorant and confused population - the ideal breeding ground for a dictatorship. Or is the US already a dictatorship? Remember that Bush was appointed and that a supreme court judge declared that there is no constitutional right to vote for the president....

Montrealer said:

How charmingly elitist of you.

M. said:

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

I don't want to influence elections where I have limited knowledge and I don't want anyone to test my knowledge using their standards or coerce me to participate.

"You can't always get what you want," even in a democracy. Again, you are only free because of the system - if you don't make the effort to help keep the system working, don't be suprised when it fails you and you find yourself facing something much more unpleasant than having to answer a short quiz about politics.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Anyone, anywhere who claims not to like poetry and/or understand it should herewith be immediately struck from the rolls of eligible voters, since poetry is the most subtle, sublime, sophisticated, sensuous and straightforward form of expression in any language known to man.

[MC Habber]

M. said:

Anyone, anywhere who claims not to like poetry and/or understand it should herewith be immediately struck from the rolls of eligible voters, since poetry is the most subtle, sublime, sophisticated, sensuous and straightforward form of expression in any language known to man.

Surely you don't think that sort of question is what I intend. I'm not proposing a personal questionaire, I'm suggesting simple, objective, factual questions where the answers are agreed upon by people across the political spectrum and should be common knowledge. And again, I don't in any way favour barring people from voting for life.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

Elitism for sure, if you use a rather loose definition of 'elite.' Is it a perfect solution? Not at all. In fact I'd hope it could be employed as a temporary measure - an improved school system should produce a general public that is better informed (on the whole) and reduce the need for such an admittedly drastic measure. But the trend seems to be towards a more brainwashed, more polarised, more ignorant and confused population - the ideal breeding ground for a dictatorship. Or is the US already a dictatorship? Remember that Bush was appointed and that a supreme court judge declared that there is no constitutional right to vote for the president....

I refer you to my "Vedic wheel of Life" post earlier in this thread. This is just part of the cyclical nature of human history.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

Surely you don't think that sort of question is what I intend. I'm not proposing a personal questionaire, I'm suggesting simple, objective, factual questions where the answers are agreed upon by people across the political spectrum and should be common knowledge. And again, I don't in any way favour barring people from voting for life.

Let the people choose to create ior destroy. Wisdom cannot be legislated or be contained in a questionnaire. The slow evolutionary path of learning continues, with its attendant relapses.

By forcing people to pass a test (why does the film "Gattaca" pop into my mind) a very much larger segment of the population than at present will be alienated from the process. This will include not only those who cannot give the "right" answers but also those who choose not to participate in this exercise for other reasons.

If you want to sow the seeds for revolution this seems to be an excellent plan. Of course the eventual outcome cannot be accurately predicted.

[seventeen]

M. said:

Will the next US president be the Terminator (and all that implies)?

I understood that a requirement of becoming president was being born in the US. In other words, simply being a citizen wasn't enough. Is my understanding incorrect? I believe Ahnold was born in Austria, which should disqualify him.