Election

[MC Habber]

seventeen said:

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.

This is true, but rules were made to be broken (by the Republican party).

[MC Habber]

M. said:

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.

So we should just accept it and not try to salvage things?

[MC Habber]

M. said:

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.

Will they be alienated or will they be inspired to take a more active role?

Perhaps a less heavey-handed approach could also do the job: everyone receives a page or 2 in the mail explaining a few major issues and the stances of the major parties, along with a short, simple quiz based on the reading. The quiz is open-book, open-newspaper, and open to discussion with others, and anyone failing to pass may repeat as many times as they want. The intent here is to "force" people to at least read a brief explanation so that they aren't voting without having been exposed to any relevant information. This is more in the spirit of my intent: not to bar people from the process but to encourage them to be informed and to participate.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

So we should just accept it and not try to salvage things?

Not exactly. The principle is that one should endeavor to change one's self, not to attempt to impose change on others, and that through manifesting change in oneself one will in one's daily interactions have a positive effect on others. Not exactly powdered salvation (just add water).

You cannot legislate love (or wisdom). You can try to scare people with laws.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

Will they be alienated or will they be inspired to take a more active role?

Alienated people have not necessarily historically been socio-politically inactive, no matter what hip-hop nation reflects.

There are plenty of examples. Look at Québec for instance.

Perhaps a less heavey-handed approach could also do the job: everyone receives a page or 2 in the mail explaining a few major issues and the stances of the major parties, along with a short, simple quiz based on the reading. The quiz is open-book, open-newspaper, and open to discussion with others, and anyone failing to pass may repeat as many times as they want. The intent here is to "force" people to at least read a brief explanation so that they aren't voting without having been exposed to any relevant information. This is more in the spirit of my intent: not to bar people from the process but to encourage them to be informed and to participate.

Maybe I don't want to read more junk mail. Maybe I just want to do what I do. Maybe I'm doing allright Jack. Maybe the system is putting enough cash in my pocket (never mind how I get it) just the way it is. Maybe I just want to watch TV because it shows the people I can relate to or that I want become. Maybe you should keep your nose out of my business, before I blow it off, and let me vote for who I want.

[MC Habber]

M. said:

Maybe you should keep your nose out of my business, before I blow it off, and let me vote for who I want.

Where did I say anything about limiting who you can vote for? I'm not even going to the extreme of making people have any kind of logic behind their vote, all I'm saying is, read this "junk mail," or don't bother showing up to the polling station (and the odds are, you weren't going to show up, anyway).

You have to pass a test before you can get a driver's license (arguably the most important piece of ID most people have). You have to pass a test (of sorts) to get a job. You have to pass a test every year when you do your taxes (if making sense out of all those forms isn't a test, I don't know what is). Why should voting be different?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

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.

How do you determine what questions are appropriate or what score is a pass?

IQ >150 yeilds 10 votes
IQ < 100 yeilds 0.5 votes

Questions must show no racial or cultural bias.
No questions about poetry or Braodway shows. (I'm not good at those)
Questions about religeon to determine issues related to religeon?
Landowners get two additional votes.
You are actually favoring the status qou since the successful voters will elect their favorites who will devise questions that favor their interests (or approved answers that favor their interests).
Mr. Clinton is a very intelligent man but I disagree with his principles and values.
The Supreme court has nine very highly educated and trained judges and they disagree 5 to 4 on the correct answers many questions.
Drop the puck and bring back hockey!

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

How do you determine what questions are appropriate or what score is a pass?

By asking people form both sides. There are things that Bush, Kerry, Nader, and Badnarik can all agree on. I don't think a question like "Did Bush ratify the Kyoto protocol?" is up for debate, do you?

Of course determining fair questions is an issue, but even an imperfect set of questions is an improvement over the current situation. You say you don't want racial bias, but minority groups are already being deliberately excluded from the vote. Many checks are possible, for example, people could also be asked whether they think the questions were fair, with a substantial majority answering 'yes' as a requirement for things to go ahead.

On a side note, I place no stock whatsoever in IQ tests because (1) they are fundamentally biased (against women for example), and (2) I don't beleive intelligence can be quantified (or should be used as a determinant of who can vote).

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

MC said:

By asking people form both sides. There are things that Bush, Kerry, Nader, and Badnarik can all agree on. I don't think a question like "Did Bush ratify the Kyoto protocol?" is up for debate, do you?

Of course determining fair questions is an issue, but even an imperfect set of questions is an improvement over the current situation. You say you don't want racial bias, but minority groups are already being deliberately excluded from the vote. Many checks are possible, for example, people could also be asked whether they think the questions were fair, with a substantial majority answering 'yes' as a requirement for things to go ahead.

On a side note, I place no stock whatsoever in IQ tests because (1) they are fundamentally biased (against women for example), and (2) I don't beleive intelligence can be quantified (or should be used as a determinant of who can vote).

Did Bush ratify the Kyoto protocol? is not an appropriate question for those of us who don't give a Rats Ass about the Kyoto Protocol. Would Kerry apoint only judges who agree with him on the Right to Life? is not an appropriate question for someone who cares only about the environment and not the independant judicial system.
I can't impose my values on the voting public and select or deselect voters from the roles who are not informed on specific issues. While the correct answer to a specific question may or may not be debatable, the appropriateness of the question is certainly questionable.
Some people notoriously are poor test takers and they should not be eliminated from the Democratic process because they take longer to take positions on issues and get nervous in test situations.
By now I think you know my position and I yours so repeating the same issues with new analogies isn't getting us anywhere.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Did Bush ratify the Kyoto protocol? is not an appropriate question for those of us who don't give a Rats Ass about the Kyoto Protocol. Would Kerry apoint only judges who agree with him on the Right to Life? is not an appropriate question for someone who cares only about the environment and not the independant judicial system.
I can't impose my values on the voting public and select or deselect voters from the roles who are not informed on specific issues. While the correct answer to a specific question may or may not be debatable, the appropriateness of the question is certainly questionable.
Some people notoriously are poor test takers and they should not be eliminated from the Democratic process because they take longer to take positions on issues and get nervous in test situations.
By now I think you know my position and I yours so repeating the same issues with new analogies isn't getting us anywhere.

Except I'm not saying you must know the answer to *that* question. I'm saying, given 10 questions about 10 different major issues, you should know the correct answers to 5 of them. About Kyoto specifically, I don't think there are many people who don't care either way; most people are either in favour of it or against it, and some aren't sure. I think you'd agree that ratification could have a significant impact on the economy, and IMO, that combined with the international pressure makes it a major issue.

To people who only care about a single issue, I'd say if you really care, it won't be too much trouble for you to learn a little about the other issues so that you can cast your vote in favour of banning abortion, or allowing gay marriage, or whatever.

Regarding your last point, giving people a short document to read and then verifying that they did, in fact, read it, isn't much of a test situation.

[seventeen]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

IQ < 100 yeilds 0.5 votes

George might not be able to vote for himself.

I saw on Jeopardy tonight that some area at CIA headquarters in Langley has been dubbed (I'm full of puns in this one) the George W Bush centre for Intelligence. And I thought....that's an oxymoron. Ooops, there's that synonym again.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

Where did I say anything about limiting who you can vote for? I'm not even going to the extreme of making people have any kind of logic behind their vote, all I'm saying is, read this "junk mail," or don't bother showing up to the polling station (and the odds are, you weren't going to show up, anyway).

I understand your point, though I'm not so sure I support it.

But answer me this if you can: How does one ensure that the leader of the single most powerful and technologically advanced nation on the planet has a comprehensive knowledge of a map of the world?

You have to pass a test before you can get a driver's license (arguably the most important piece of ID most people have).

Not so sure about that here in Toronto. I think you can get them in select boxes of cereal.

You have to pass a test (of sorts) to get a job.

Guido never tole me 'bout no stinkin' test!

You have to pass a test every year when you do your taxes (if making sense out of all those forms isn't a test, I don't know what is).

When you do your what?

Why should voting be different?

It ain't big guy, it ain't. An' there's lots of people wants to keep things just the way they are. An' I ain't talkin' small fry, neither.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

seventeen said:

George might not be able to vote for himself.

I saw on Jeopardy tonight that some area at CIA headquarters in Langley has been dubbed (I'm full of puns in this one) the George W Bush centre for Intelligence. And I thought....that's an oxymoron. Ooops, there's that synonym again.

His foreign policy efforts were bound to be rewarded sooner or later. After all, he has helped to unite the world...

*

Published on Sunday, June 10, 2001 in the Observer of London
George W. Bush's America
Bush Given Idiot's Guide to Europe
President receives special tuition to shed his ignorant image when he crosses the Atlantic

by Peter Beaumont

Call it a crammer course. This weekend at his sumptuous ranch in Crawford, Texas, the leader of the world's only remaining superpower, George W. Bush, is sitting down with his National Security Adviser, the ferociously intelligent Condoleezza Rice, for a series of briefings on US foreign policy.

- www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0610-01.htm

[Disgruntled70sHab]

An interesting editorial in today's Ottawa Sun guys. Please read below.

Some election, some choice


What better time than Halloween to comment on an election that's said to be all about fear?

We've heard the scaremongering from both sides: If U.S. President George Bush is re-elected, Democrats say, the world will get more dangerous, war will be constant and more innocents will die.

Or, if Sen. John Kerry takes over, Republicans warn, policies of appeasement will rule, extremists will be emboldened and the terrorists will win.

There's no doubt if this country had a vote on Tuesday, it would be overwhelmingly for Kerry. Many Canadians are appalled by the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, and see Kerry's left-leaning, more cosmopolitan outlook as closer to our own.

Yet a Kerry presidency would arguably be worse for Canada.

canoe.com/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Editorial/

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

Yet a Kerry presidency would arguably be worse for Canada.

[/i]

canoe.com/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Editorial/

[/quote]

IMO, the presidency which does the least damage to global stability would probably the best choice for Canada. I'm not sure either Bush or Kerry will be good for us.

The terrorists' war is a war against our civilization: Against western democracy, prosperity, diversity, capitalism, freedom.

I don't agree with that. Lots of democratic, capitalist countries have not been the victim of terrorist attacks. The "war" is a reaction to US interference (real or perceived) in international affairs. Certain people may not like the way that we live, but they wouldn't be willing to sacrifice their lives because of it if they didn't believe they were under attack by the US.

[MC Habber]

M. said:

I understand your point, though I'm not so sure I support it.

But answer me this if you can: How does one ensure that the leader of the single most powerful and technologically advanced nation on the planet has a comprehensive knowledge of a map of the world?

By having a population which is well-enough informed to be able to tell the difference.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

By having a population which is well-enough informed to be able to tell the difference.

In that case, give them education (and by that I don't mean the physical act of sitting in a building that just happens to be called a "school"), not quizzes.

Cursed by an education system that does little more than churn out fodder for the labour market (and is not doing a particularly good job at even that these days) one cannot help but nod in agreement when the overwhelmingly popular answer to the question, "What TV character would make the best president?" is "Homer Simpson". This puts me in mind of the futuristic 1960's fim "The 10th Victim", and a scene wherein Ursula Andress's character watches her comic book collection being confiscated and wails, "My classics!"

Thinking is work, often hard work. A lot of people prefer to be told what to think and what to do. It's easier. Governments tend to prefer that as well. After all, dmeocracy guarantees one the right not to think.

[seventeen]

M. said:

Cursed by an education system that does little more than churn out fodder for the labour market (and is not doing a particularly good job at even that these days) one cannot help but nod in agreement when the overwhelmingly popular answer to the question, "What TV character would make the best president?" is "Homer Simpson".

Thinking is work, often hard work. A lot of people prefer to be told what to think and what to do. It's easier. Governments tend to prefer that as well. After all, dmeocracy guarantees one the right not to think.

Remember, though that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and it is much easier and more convenient to let someone else make the decisions and complain about it later.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Just voted. I can't believe that we're trying to teach anyone else how to run an election. The electronic voting machines are a wonderful example in counter intuitive logic. Hundreds of elderly people, who haven't figured out how to use an ATM and still rely on tellers in banks are trying to use voting machines with selection wheels, enter and red vote buttons. Most couldn't figure out how to enter their pin numbers or select the language of preference. The ballot has 12 propositions and eighteen separate candidates sections to vote for ranging from president to school board reps. Nobody in line had decided on which proposition they favored and some people took 45 minutes to vote with helpers showing them how to do it and holding their hands. If you're still undecided about props. 68 & 70 by the time you enter the voting booth, there's no hope. The elderly were relying on the advice of the polling supervisors. Most wouldn't pass MC's most simple tests. Some weren't sure of their own addresses or what they ate for breakfast. So much for secret ballots.

Hopefully in a few hours we will know who will be the leader of the free world for the next four years. At this point the lawyers will have a field day. I'm in a fairly affluent precinct well stocked with paid volunteers, but I expect lots of horror stories, long lines, frustrations and challenges.

[MC Habber]

M. said:

In that case, give them education (and by that I don't mean the physical act of sitting in a building that just happens to be called a "school"), not quizzes.

Agree 100%. But that's a long term solution. To fix the education and information systems (meaning not only schools but also the media) and produce the next generation of voters will easily take 10 years, and that's with immediate changes and good luck. And even then, most of the current group of voters will still be hanging around. I'd like to see some kind of interim measure that would cause the public to make a choice based on something closer to what the candidates stand for.

And.... even with a better education system and a more aware population, who's to say that things won't deteriorate again?