Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Yet again you are factually incorrect in virtually every contention you've made. Even as you explained the SCOTUS ruling, you concluded incorrectly! The plain truth is that it is a violation of the principle of free speech to prevent people or voluntary associations of people to speak freely.

Sorry, I'm not.

You're extrapolating from your own interpretation of the Bill of Rights 'Freedom of Speech'.

What I cited above is literally what the Supreme Court cited in the Citizens United case: that previously the Supreme Court had ruled that a corporation could not enjoy freedom of speech, but that this previous decision was overruled.

The Supreme Court of the United States by our laws is the final arbiter on the interpretation of the Constitution - not you.

That is not true in the slightest. I acknowledge reality whereas you are far more prone to come up with what your beloved behavioral psychologists might call shortcutting. The reality is that it is extremely dangerous to general and individual prosperity, notions of fairness or equality, and even safety for democracy to exist unfettered. A simple thought experiment offers some insight into this: what would be the result if elections for every office were held every single day? The fact that presidential elections are held every four years doesn't change the principle that the whims of the people, once disconnected from their means, are potentially devastating to things like living standards and equality of opportunity. The "tyranny of the majority" is a very real possibility with significant historic precedent.

At last the truth comes out. You fear that democracy will actually be democratic.

Above illustrates that you think 'freedom' is only acceptable if you get what you want.

This is a prime example where you fail to acknowledge reality. There will never be "equal say" using your metrics, because influence will always exist. Do you really want equal say? If so, are you willing to support regulations requiring that political posts on peoples' Facebooks reach an identical quantity of people, regardless of their friends list size? Are you going to ban front lawn signs supporting various candidates because they don't reach an equal number of people depending upon the neighborhood? Would you make it illegal for celebrities to voice their political opinions?

Sorry, you can keep arguing all you want.

Someone who spends millions to buy votes does not have equal say.

The point of one person, one vote is that the maximum benefit as well as the maximum damage from any one person is clearly defined and limited; that only the accumulation of many votes will determine the course of the United States.

You clearly believe in 'separate but equal' - a Jim Crow vote.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Yet again you are factually incorrect in virtually every contention you've made. Even as you explained the SCOTUS ruling, you concluded incorrectly! The plain truth is that it is a violation of the principle of free speech to prevent people or voluntary associations of people to speak freely.

While you assume that I am some sort of anarchist, I actually have no problem with curtailing the "freedoms" you list in negative connotations. I do believe in the rule of law, just not the tyranny of law.

Commercial advertising isn't irrelevant to this discussion at all. People can be seriously injured on dirt bikes just as they can be seriously injured as an indirect result of their votes. People become poor by spending their money rather than investing, yet people also become poor indirectly by their votes as well. In principle you think people aren't capable of making the "right" choices so you want to "protect" people from loud voices asking them to vote one way or another, but you don't care if they achieve similar results through other means?

No, your take stems from your fundamental belief that you know better than anyone else, as do I.

The difference between me and you is that I don't assume that my belief is correct.

You believe that if everyone were 'right thinking' like you, that they would act like you.

I guarantee you that this is a wrong belief.

That is not true in the slightest. I acknowledge reality whereas you are far more prone to come up with what your beloved behavioral psychologists might call shortcutting. The reality is that it is extremely dangerous to general and individual prosperity, notions of fairness or equality, and even safety for democracy to exist unfettered. A simple thought experiment offers some insight into this: what would be the result if elections for every office were held every single day? The fact that presidential elections are held every four years doesn't change the principle that the whims of the people, once disconnected from their means, are potentially devastating to things like living standards and equality of opportunity. The "tyranny of the majority" is a very real possibility with significant historic precedent.

The ability of one person to influence millions of others via money is not equal say.

This is a prime example where you fail to acknowledge reality. There will never be "equal say" using your metrics, because influence will always exist. Do you really want equal say? If so, are you willing to support regulations requiring that political posts on peoples' Facebooks reach an identical quantity of people, regardless of their friends list size? Are you going to ban front lawn signs supporting various candidates because they don't reach an equal number of people depending upon the neighborhood? Would you make it illegal for celebrities to voice their political opinions?

Assuming you are only in favor of limiting "really rich" people from donating without limits and that you support some arbitrary metric for determining donations on some arbitrary basis, then that is at least a bit realistic. But who are you to decide where the arbitrary limits are? This is the money that belongs to the donar, so under what principle can you possibly justify preventing them from spending their money how they see fit? Even if you can justify it in principle in your own mind, what metric would you use to determine the completely arbitrary limits? Is donating $5,000 to a candidate too much? What about $500? That seems like a lot of money to donate to a candidate, especially for people of very modest means. In fact, there are plenty of families and individuals that couldn't even scrape together $5 to donate--maybe the limit should be there?

"Removing money from politics" does not work in practice and there is no reason why it should work in principle either. It makes the fundamentally pretense that "the problem" is that "money buys votes," when all money actually does is add influence to vote one way or the other. But all schemes of "removing money from politics" fail to address the actual disease, which is the easily-influenced voter that allows himself or herself to get "bought," using your parlance. You could completely eliminate all forms of political advertising, the ultimate "remove money from politics" policy, and you'd still be left with the same fundamental situation and have imperceptible differences in outcomes. Even if there were to be a difference in outcome, there is absolutely no reason to suspect it would be a "better" difference--"common wisdom" is a two-edged sword.

The simple reality is that political advertising is only information. It's good information, bad information, or indifferent, but all it is is information. It may be intended to influence people to vote one way or the other, but that choice is still in the hands of the voters. Money in politics is not the "problem" (your parlance), it is the people who are "bought" (again using your parlance).

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I have never stated that corporations are people, not even close. Answer the questions, c1ue.

The specific argument used by the Supreme Court in Citizens United was to overturn a previous precedent that corporations are not people: Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The means of overturning the previous Supreme Court decision was a nebulous invocation of a protection of free speech - irregardless of the entity making it.

Thus to say that you are not arguing that corporations are people is false - because the specific SCOTUS ruling explicitly overrode such a previous distinction.

And for the record, your examples of the differences between people and corporations are piss-poor: corporations are indeed subject to law and punishment, they do "die of natural causes" economically speaking, and they do adhere to their own internal doctrines. Again, just so it sinks in, I am not saying that corporations are people.

Wrong, corporations do not have a limited lifespan dictated by biological reality. The 'death' you speak of is always a function of outside factors - i.e. there are no natural limitations on the lifetime of a corporation. The same is not true of a human being - any human being.

Corporations also can be punished, but they cannot be executed. They cannot go to jail. They cannot even be 'captured' in a physical sense.

Well you are factually wrong about money being equivalent to votes because you can't vote for money, at least directly, and neither can you purchase votes by paying some money price for them. Like any other transaction, there are methods of exchange and where you see "money buys votes" and probably that "votes buy money," those are not true reflections of the intricacies of what happen.

As you said, your vote is not bought. So you seem to be arguing in favor of something that doesn't affect you at all directly, since you are allegedly immune to political advertising. Why are you trying to "protect" people from political advertising? What's wrong with letting people make up their own minds? Hell, why don't you just decide what they should consider when voting, or just vote for them? Should people also be protected and insulated from commercial advertising? Maybe they should be insulated from social advertising as well, with regulations on the number of Facebook friends and how many organizations they can join?

It's one thing to make fraud illegal. It's quite another to nullify the First Amendment to entrench incumbent ideology which is exactly what current campaign finance laws do.

Sorry, but your ideological posturing is still false.

When the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written, there were no corporations. There cannot be in any sense any 'naturally' justifiable reason why said Bill of Rights/Constitution must apply to a legal fiction.

As for money and votes - you still are trying to talk your way out of fact.

Does money buy votes? Does spending large sums of money yield political representation? The answer to both is unequivocably yes.

As for advertising - this is frankly irrelevant. Advertising for commercial purposes is a purely commercial matter - however advertising for governance purposes is a governmental matter. Your arguments about insulation are also frankly irrelevant and goofy.

Government regulation insulates us from all manner of 'freedoms': the freedom to be robbed, the freedom to be defrauded, the freedom to be poisoned, the freedom to be threatened, etc etc.

But by all means continue trying to apply a set of laws for people to a legal fiction.

I think it is amusing and entirely indicative.

Yet you and I fundamentally agree on a certain point: certain people should not have equal say in the political process.

Categorically rejected. I don't say anyone should not have equal say - I am in fact saying everyone should have equal say.

The ability of one person to influence millions of others via money is not equal say.

My take on the issue we fundamentally agree on, that some people should not have an equal say in political matters, stems from my acknowledgement of reality.

No, your take stems from your fundamental belief that you know better than anyone else, as do I.

The difference between me and you is that I don't assume that my belief is correct.

You believe that if everyone were 'right thinking' like you, that they would act like you.

I guarantee you that this is a wrong belief.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Corporations are not people. By your logic, we're all red blood cells, because we're composed of red blood cells.

Neither do corporations behave like people: they don't go to jail, they don't die of natural causes, they have no conscience or morals, etc etc.

I have never stated that corporations are people, not even close. Answer the questions, c1ue.

And for the record, your examples of the differences between people and corporations are piss-poor: corporations are indeed subject to law and punishment, they do "die of natural causes" economically speaking, and they do adhere to their own internal doctrines. Again, just so it sinks in, I am not saying that corporations are people.

Yes, I do consider money equivalent to votes - not voting. Money buys votes.

Are you seriously going to disagree with this statement?

And while money will not buy my vote, the reality is that it will buy someone's votes.

To say that because the former statement is true and thus the latter statement is true is a logical fallacy.

Well you are factually wrong about money being equivalent to votes because you can't vote for money, at least directly, and neither can you purchase votes by paying some money price for them. Like any other transaction, there are methods of exchange and where you see "money buys votes" and probably that "votes buy money," those are not true reflections of the intricacies of what happen.

As you said, your vote is not bought. So you seem to be arguing in favor of something that doesn't affect you at all directly, since you are allegedly immune to political advertising. Why are you trying to "protect" people from political advertising? What's wrong with letting people make up their own minds? Hell, why don't you just decide what they should consider when voting, or just vote for them? Should people also be protected and insulated from commercial advertising? Maybe they should be insulated from social advertising as well, with regulations on the number of Facebook friends and how many organizations they can join?

It's one thing to make fraud illegal. It's quite another to nullify the First Amendment to entrench incumbent ideology which is exactly what current campaign finance laws do.

The problem with trying to identify an 'informed, responsible citizen' is that this is exactly the excuse used innumerable times to disenfranchise those of inimicable political leanings. Because it is so very easy to manipulate the definition of informed and/or responsible.

If the problem is money is distorting the views of the 'uninformed' or 'irresponsible', why not just remove the money? Far easier to remove the money than the other side of the equation.

I'm fully aware of the difficulty in identifying a better system of voting, hence my reluctance to endorse a concrete proposal. Yet you and I fundamentally agree on a certain point: certain people should not have equal say in the political process. This is why you propose preventing people from being influenced by monied interests, and why I believe there should be higher standards for voting than a pulse.

To answer your questions directly: removing money in an attempt to prevent it from influencing necessarily ignorant citizens does nothing to address the existence of woefully ignorant citizens voting. What you call easy evidently doesn't actually work, since money has "bought" votes in every election ever despite various degrees of campaign finance laws.

Personally I don't see why you have such a problem with it, or why you are more interested in removing potential voters rather than removing pernicious influences on voters.

My take on the issue we fundamentally agree on, that some people should not have an equal say in political matters, stems from my acknowledgement of reality. There will always be what you describe as pernicious influences on the political process. People inherently tend to seek to enhance their own standing; that is human nature. This is why communism fails, and why republicanism gets captured. It's why a naked democracy is the most dangerous form of government in the world. This is why any change should be considered very carefully, and once considered very carefully it should be encapsulated and made highly resilient to the whims of the masses.

Frankly though, I would much rather have monied interests have more influence in the direction of politics in a relatively market-based country than other types of interests in that same country because wealth accumulation in market-based countries fundamentally represents a combination of long-term societal contribution and luck. It is a kind of "lesser-bad" of the available tradeoffs, and superior to "keep money out" approaches to democratic systems because of the immediate tendency to "vote off more than one can chew," so to speak.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I'm still not entirely sold on the concept of a test. I would prefer something much more rigid and difficult to change, rather than something that would require regular updating such as a test which includes any level of current events subject matter. A test must be created and updated from time to time, which in turn means that people in relevant authority must sit down and create it. There would inevitably be present the incentive to create questions to entrench the incumbent ideology or political party, just as you see the incentives to rewrite history in textbooks to conform to various schoolboard ideologies or the whims of the authors.

Your point about needing to follow up with civic-minded activity is well-taken, but there will never be a perfect solution. Perfection is the enemy of the "good enough".

Being of a "constrained" viewpoint, I would go one further and say that there is no such thing as a solution. There are only tradeoffs. I would tradeoff the present system for some alternatives, but probably not for a system that placed large emphasis on a test requirement for citizenship.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What are corporations, c1ue? Did you know that they are comprised of people and owned by people?

Corporations are not people. By your logic, we're all red blood cells, because we're composed of red blood cells.

Neither do corporations behave like people: they don't go to jail, they don't die of natural causes, they have no conscience or morals, etc etc.

You seem to think money is equivalent to voting.

Yes, I do consider money equivalent to votes - not voting. Money buys votes.

Are you seriously going to disagree with this statement?

And while money will not buy my vote, the reality is that it will buy someone's votes.

To say that because the former statement is true and thus the latter statement is true is a logical fallacy.

I believe that people should be held accountable for their actions, up to and including their actions under the influence of their own ignorance when voting, when buying unsafe products even when they are approved by the FDA, and etc. I cannot think of a single circumstance in which people at the age of majority should not be subjected to the naked, unfiltered consequences of their actions, including how they vote no matter what information they were given. What I believe in is an informed, responsible citizen.

The problem with trying to identify an 'informed, responsible citizen' is that this is exactly the excuse used innumerable times to disenfranchise those of inimicable political leanings. Because it is so very easy to manipulate the definition of informed and/or responsible.

If the problem is money is distorting the views of the 'uninformed' or 'irresponsible', why not just remove the money? Far easier to remove the money than the other side of the equation.

Personally I don't see why you have such a problem with it, or why you are more interested in removing potential voters rather than removing pernicious influences on voters.

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

The laziest, most self-absorbed people will not want to trouble themselves

Are you describing the top 1/10 of the one-percenters. Their voting record is hardly stellar . . .

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

A test, especially a federally-administered one, only serves to prove that one has studied for the test. The extremely basic knowledge required to pass the citizenship/naturalization test can be read, remembered, regurgitated during the test, and then completely data dumped afterwards. Only if such a test is followed by an activity that reinforces that knowledge, then it will serve to provide some measure of competence in civics.

Immigrants who become citizens are usually better citizens than people born here who take their citizenship for granted. If an ignorant voter has to study and practice for a test, the hope is they might actually learn something in the process and value their vote more. Test questions should be improved upon to eliminate the fluff and emphasize the nuts and bolts of our system.

The whole process would work to show people that voting is important- important enough to require some effort on their part. People might learn to listen to campaign promises with a more discerning ear, take some pride in their accomplishment and not be so willing to throw it away.

The laziest, most self-absorbed people will not want to trouble themselves and won't participate. Good riddance to bad rubbish. At least a test isn't subject to biases that would exclude people due to factors such as personal wealth.

Your point about needing to follow up with civic-minded activity is well-taken, but there will never be a perfect solution. Perfection is the enemy of the "good enough".

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

A test, especially a federally-administered one, only serves to prove that one has studied for the test. The extremely basic knowledge required to pass the citizenship/naturalization test can be read, remembered, regurgitated during the test, and then completely data dumped afterwards. Only if such a test is followed by an activity that reinforces that knowledge, then it will serve to provide some measure of competence in civics.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What DSpencer has done is fall into a quite common fallacy about economic activity and reality in general. It is an undeniable fact that not all economic activity is accounted for via monetary transactions. You are quite right that being a mother is a contribution to society, because raising children is still the most important job on the planet using the metric of human species survival. Yet you will never see the labor done by, for example, stay-at-home mothers to raise their children and maintain the household in terms of wages. Yet you will see that labor in terms of wages if it is outsourced to a nanny or housekeeper, even though the work done is essentially identical. A simpler example is mowing the lawn--if you do it with your own capital and labor (lawnmower, gasoline and elbow grease), then it is seen as merely a consumer's consumption of resources. Yet if that same lawn is mowed by a professional service or even the neighbor's kid who gets paid for it, then it is seen as part of the service sector economy!

These examples illustrate that reality is often divorced from common perception or common "economic" theories. That is why it is incredibly difficult to come up with any metric other than "one person, one vote" and have it be considered fair by even a majority of people.

That's why I suggested the citizenship/naturalization test to demonstrate a reasonable level of intelligence and a basic knowledge of civics. It's fair and impartial, like a written driver's test that's required for getting a driver's license.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

A woman raising her children is contributing to society.



There's a popular misconception that all welfare mothers are deadbeats trying to game the system, having babies out of wedlock just to get "free" money. In actuality, most welfare recipients are abandoned by their husbands, left to fend for themselves and their children without support. So deadbeat dads can vote as long as they pay income tax, while the mothers, saddled with children for which they can't find or afford childcare, unable to work under those conditions, are "non-productive" and unworthy of the vote? Are you also going to make it so men who don't pay child support can't vote?

There was a time when women who left their children in childcare in order to work were derided as bad mothers. Now, if they stay at home to care for their children they're derided as non-productive citizens. So which is it?

What about the woman who worked all her life, who was "productive" in your book, then loses her husband through no fault of her own (like I did)? Without my husband's income I don't earn enough to pay income taxes but I do pay payroll tax. Under the current tax code I even get a refund. I didn't write the bloody tax code and I'm smarter than most people I know (iTulip company excepted) but in your mind I'm unworthy to vote.

You're right. This ISN'T theoretical at all.

What DSpencer has done is fall into a quite common fallacy about economic activity and reality in general. It is an undeniable fact that not all economic activity is accounted for via monetary transactions. You are quite right that being a mother is a contribution to society, because raising children is still the most important job on the planet using the metric of human species survival. Yet you will never see the labor done by, for example, stay-at-home mothers to raise their children and maintain the household in terms of wages. Yet you will see that labor in terms of wages if it is outsourced to a nanny or housekeeper, even though the work done is essentially identical. A simpler example is mowing the lawn--if you do it with your own capital and labor (lawnmower, gasoline and elbow grease), then it is seen as merely a consumer's consumption of resources. Yet if that same lawn is mowed by a professional service or even the neighbor's kid who gets paid for it, then it is seen as part of the service sector economy!

These examples illustrate that reality is often divorced from common perception or common "economic" theories. That is why it is incredibly difficult to come up with any metric other than "one person, one vote" and have it be considered fair by even a majority of people.

[cjppjc]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

................

[Prazak]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Questions like this sound compelling, but think about it. If you can't on net contribute to society, why should you determine its direction?

A responsible parent doesn't let their children determine how to spend their paycheck. Whether to get a dog or pay the mortgage? Whether to fix the roof or buy a new tv?

Why should a person who won't be paying for any government services determine what they should be and more importantly, how much everyone else should pay for them?

This isn't some theoretical conversation about people voting themselves the treasury. It's happening right now.

http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

Obamaphone.net.

How about people on social security, or disability? If someone is a net liability on public finances why should they determine the direction of society?

How about liars? If someone can't be trusted to tell the truth, why should they be trusted to cast a truthful ballot?

How about people who cheat at games or business, or who cut in line at the grocery store or on the exit ramp? If someone refuses to follow the rules in their personal life, why should they be allowed to influence the rules of the general public?

How about people who have terminal illness? If they're going to be dead in a few months, and thus not contributing anything to society, why should they affect the course of the next government?

Slopes are slippery. Be careful about wishing to disenfranchise people based on your view of the merits.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Questions like this sound compelling, but think about it. If you can't on net contribute to society, why should you determine its direction?

A woman raising her children is contributing to society.

A responsible parent doesn't let their children determine how to spend their paycheck. Whether to get a dog or pay the mortgage? Whether to fix the roof or buy a new tv?

Why should a person who won't be paying for any government services determine what they should be and more importantly, how much everyone else should pay for them?

This isn't some theoretical conversation about people voting themselves the treasury. It's happening right now.

http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

Obamaphone.net.

There's a popular misconception that all welfare mothers are deadbeats trying to game the system, having babies out of wedlock just to get "free" money. In actuality, most welfare recipients are abandoned by their husbands, left to fend for themselves and their children without support. So deadbeat dads can vote as long as they pay income tax, while the mothers, saddled with children for which they can't find or afford childcare, unable to work under those conditions, are "non-productive" and unworthy of the vote? Are you also going to make it so men who don't pay child support can't vote?

There was a time when women who left their children in childcare in order to work were derided as bad mothers. Now, if they stay at home to care for their children they're derided as non-productive citizens. So which is it?

What about the woman who worked all her life, who was "productive" in your book, then loses her husband through no fault of her own (like I did)? Without my husband's income I don't earn enough to pay income taxes but I do pay payroll tax. Under the current tax code I even get a refund. I didn't write the bloody tax code and I'm smarter than most people I know (iTulip company excepted) but in your mind I'm unworthy to vote.

You're right. This ISN'T theoretical at all.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

The question seems to be: are you better off disenfranchising people who are ignorant or letting ignorant people vote. Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

You wouldn't give someone who can't read, write or do basic math the right to launch nuclear weapons, so why would you give that person a right to determine who does make that decision?

What about this as a first step: Every vote is a write in (type in). You can't just check the box for whichever party you decided to root for arbitrarily. You have to actually know who is running in each election.

Maybe the whole system should be run like an automated test at a computer station. To vote for dogcatcher you have to get the correct answer for 2+2. To vote for a tax levy you have to get the correct answer for 100 - .35x100. To vote for POTUS you have to answer several questions about US History.

At the very least we could require everyone to pass the naturalization test.

Well the reality with any of those types of implementations is that you will always disallow people from voting for quite arbitrary reasons. What constitutes a fair math question? Or a fair history question? Those are not even relevant skills or knowledge for being an informed citizen. However, there may be some merit in having only write-ins, because you would absolutely have to at least know the name of the person you are voting for, and that would eliminate the political party shortcutting that so many people admit to using (vote all D or all R on a ballot).

I was thinking something more along the lines of a verifiable activity that would could earn citizenship. But again it's a tricky issue because there are very few ways to verify that someone is an informed person capable of making informed decisions. Fundamentally I think voting should be left up to informed citizens only, not merely interested citizens, but designing a system in which people are filtered between informed and uninformed is an impossible task because there really is no such thing as a perfectly informed citizen or a perfectly ignorant citizen. Which shade of grey do we paint with?