Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[DSpencer]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What about the formerly married woman with small children who was abandoned by her husband? She's on welfare through no fault of her own, trying to hold her family together.

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.

[DSpencer]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Perhaps there could be requirements to earn citizenship outside of simply being born here or abroad to US parents, which would disable various portions of the public from voting even more than is already the case (i.e. nobody under 18, the restraints on convicted felons, existing non-citizens, etc.).

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.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What if each person gets log(federal income tax paid) + 1 votes. Example I get 5 votes, Romney gets 7, non-tax payers 1. Want a lot of votes, pay a lot of taxes.
The rich get more votes anyhow as the system stands now. We can argue about the base of the log and the +1, but you get the idea.

There's something compelling about ensuring that deadbeats don't vote, but determing what constitutes a deadbeat is problematic. Perhaps it should be based on paying taxes, but not specifically the income tax. There are a lot of hard-working people who don't earn enough to pay income tax but still have payroll taxes taken out of every paycheck.

What about all the formerly employed people who were laid off in the crash through no fault of their own and now don't earn anything?

What about the formerly married woman with small children who was abandoned by her husband? She's on welfare through no fault of her own, trying to hold her family together.

What about the elderly on Social Security, or the disabled who can't work?

Shall we deny these people the vote but allow the FIRE bastards who caused the AFC to determine the future of our country? I think not.

I'd rather see everybody who wants to vote take the naturalization test that immigrants have to take before becoming citizens. Administered in English only, but with accomodations for the handicapped. You'd see a lot of people who pay income taxes and have diplomas demonstrate that they're not qualified to have a voice in determining our affairs.

How Dumb Are We?

American Naturalization Test

Why are so many answers on the citizenship test wrong?

[DSpencer]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What if each person gets log(federal income tax paid) + 1 votes. Example I get 5 votes, Romney gets 7, non-tax payers 1. Want a lot of votes, pay a lot of taxes.
The rich get more votes anyhow as the system stands now. We can argue about the base of the log and the +1, but you get the idea.

I'm sure there's problems with this idea, but if you can't see the problems with our current system you are blind. The plus side would be that instead of buying the vote through advertising etc, you'd have to actually contribute to government to buy your votes. Seems much more beneficial.

[charliebrown]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What if each person gets log(federal income tax paid) + 1 votes. Example I get 5 votes, Romney gets 7, non-tax payers 1. Want a lot of votes, pay a lot of taxes.
The rich get more votes anyhow as the system stands now. We can argue about the base of the log and the +1, but you get the idea.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Well perhaps one of the most logical steps towards becoming more of a republic would be to repeal the 17th Amendment, allowing the state governments to once again determine their representatives instead of the people. That would remove the entire Senate from the ballot, freeing them to look at the interests of the states rather than the more mundane interests of necessarily ignorant citizens (and let's face it, citizens cannot all be experts in all matters considered by the Senate).

Perhaps there could be requirements to earn citizenship outside of simply being born here or abroad to US parents, which would disable various portions of the public from voting even more than is already the case (i.e. nobody under 18, the restraints on convicted felons, existing non-citizens, etc.). The founders kind of had that idea, but the only reason it was set to allow white landowners is because that reflected the reality of the politically powerful of that era. Any such movement back towards republicanism (small r) is likely to enshrine this era's politically powerful on a pedestal, which is also unfortunate.

But even if all we could do is repeal the 17th Amendment, that could have potentially drastic changes in government policy and voting practices. It really makes little sense to have the people in a given state elect both a Representative and a Senator, which is effectively just a Super-Representative in most cases because more people elect him/her. It would be one step in refocusing the federal government on its obligations to the Constitution, rather than on the whims of the necessarily ignorant masses.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

You reap what you sow. Welcome to democracy! The people in that interview are a reason for why the founders of this country gave us a republic. Somewhere along the way, we became much more democratic. Maybe it's time to become more of a republic again?

If we did, how, in your opinion, would things change with regards to voting?

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

You reap what you sow. Welcome to democracy! The people in that interview are a reason for why the founders of this country gave us a republic. Somewhere along the way, we became much more democratic. Maybe it's time to become more of a republic again?

[DSpencer]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What I believe in is an informed, responsible citizen.

Like these people:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ters_2012.html

They can't be swayed much by fancy propaganda because they absolutely refuse to pay attention to the world around them!

These aren't people who are likely to vote, but it's scary to think that they technically have an equal say in who is elected.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Amusing - you see Adelson's single handed redirection of the Republican party's electoral process as 'more choice'.

And to be fair, it is more choice. More choice in Adelson's single vote (plus millions of dollars) in the legal process to be able to override tens of thousands of others' votes.

You also apparently believe that corporations - which don't even have a vote - should equally have 'more choice' to override actual, real votes.

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

I'm not really in favor of corporations being given more say than individuals. I'm really just against the limitations placed upon spending by anyone or any voluntary-association organization. Corporations serve at collective whims of their owners, and their support of various politicians is really just an extension of the owners support for them, albeit with the possibility of minority stakeholder dissension. There is no logical first principle reason why corporations shouldn't be able to spend money in support of their endeavors, just as there shouldn't be impediments for individuals to make their speech heard to the extent they are willing to pay for.

You seem to think money is equivalent to voting. That is not correct, any more than time spent at work is equivalent to money in your bank account. They are not the same thing. Money spent to spread one-sided information can indeed influence votes, but the vote is still cast by individuals and individuals alone (sans voter fraud, obviously). Money is not the same as votes--is your vote bought by any particular candidate?

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.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

You seem to be illustrating an example which supports what I have stated. "Revivification of Newt several times" seems to have the effect of keeping one additional option available for people to choose, at least to an extent. It's all about choices, after all, and the only constructive way out of this one-party, two-flavor system is to have more choices.

Amusing - you see Adelson's single handed redirection of the Republican party's electoral process as 'more choice'.

And to be fair, it is more choice. More choice in Adelson's single vote (plus millions of dollars) in the legal process to be able to override tens of thousands of others' votes.

You also apparently believe that corporations - which don't even have a vote - should equally have 'more choice' to override actual, real votes.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

The only reason "they" still allow voting is because they know it won't make any difference to the ultimate outcome. If our votes really had the power to change things they wouldn't allow it to happen.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Meh. I disagree completely - the Adelson revivification of Newt (several times) is a perfect example of the 'free speech' you note above.

And while Newt didn't win the nomination, at the same time Adelson made his presence felt and indubitably bought himself a place at the table should Romney somehow squirm in.

Sure doesn't look like any diminishing returns to me.

You seem to be illustrating an example which supports what I have stated. "Revivification of Newt several times" seems to have the effect of keeping one additional option available for people to choose, at least to an extent. It's all about choices, after all, and the only constructive way out of this one-party, two-flavor system is to have more choices.

Flooding the airwaves with a candidate's name has some good results for their polls, but when the "top two" are already flooding the airwaves then there is only so much to be gained. Campaign finance laws do essentially nothing to stop that from already happening with the top contenders, yet they do have the effect of stopping third or other options from getting their message out.

Besides, if you don't trust the voters to make good choices on election day then you have no confidence in democratic systems. Why even allow voting to take place at all in that case? Money serves to send messages, and information is the lifeblood of democratic systems.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

There is always a choice. I choose to vote for Gary Johnson. It's not "wasting my vote". If my only obvious choice is to choose between the lesser of two evils, I'm still voting for evil. When the choice is to choose between two men who will hurt us and/or destroy the country one way or another, and we vote for the one whom we think will destroy it less, or more slowly... then when he's elected and doing his business on our heads we have only ourselves to blame for voting for him.

When I vote for someone like Johnson or write in Ron Paul, then I am not to blame for what happens later. The only wasted vote is one you deliberately cast for someone you know wants to screw you.

I don't think any vote is wasted, but I do think many votes are futile.

My view is that until things get really bad, we're not going to see change. By all means vote for who you believe in, but don't believe that vote matters (yet).

The 2010 Citizens United Ruling is unjustly criticized. All forms of campaign finance laws which are aimed at "keeping money out of politics" to various degrees are actually, in their real effects, used to suppress non-mainstream viewpoints. Campaign finance laws should never exist in any form, if only from the legal perspective of the First Amendment. Sure, some candidates can "buy" elections, to use the term very loosely. But do you think that doesn't happen now? Do you think that didn't happen in 2008? Do you think it didn't happen in 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, or any previous election year?

The beautiful thing about advertising, from the perspective of competitors, is that there are diminishing returns. Incremental increases in donations to relative unknowns produce vastly more traction than those same increases in donations to the big dogs or the incumbents. Limiting free speech in favor of non mainstream views is more conducive to maintaining the single-party, two-flavor system we have now.

Meh. I disagree completely - the Adelson revivification of Newt (several times) is a perfect example of the 'free speech' you note above.

And while Newt didn't win the nomination, at the same time Adelson made his presence felt and indubitably bought himself a place at the table should Romney somehow squirm in.

Sure doesn't look like any diminishing returns to me.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Chris Hedges…

We have undergone a corporate coup d’etat. And the center of power, as Occupy Wall Street aptly demonstrated is Wall Street not Washington. These are political puppets. They are the masks, the faces for corporate power. And Obama was an especially effective face or mask…He knows where the centers of power lie. He serves those centers of power, otherwise he wouldn’t be in office.

The end of American Democracy I would argue is the 2010 Citizens United Ruling and whatever Obama’s past, whatever Romney’s past, is not particularly relevant because internally it’s corporate lobbyists who write our laws, who write our legislation, and who control most of the airwaves. Roughly a half dozen corporations Viacom, General Electric, Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp control what most Americans watch or hear. And so to channel energy into the personal narratives which of course is exactly what Dinesh is doing, ignores the fact that in relative terms a figure like Obama is largely powerless unless he serves those real centers of power which are corporate….

I did not vote for Obama in 2008, I voted for Nader and wrote several of Ralph’s major policy speeches and will not vote for Obama in this election, not least of which is because I just sued him in federal court. And unfortunately the appellate court last night issued a stay on Judge Forest’s ruling of a permanent junction on the section 10:21 on the NDAA, which means it’s now law again until they review it. Yea it’s really heartbreaking. Because you know because Sheldon Wolen nailed it in his book Democracy Incorporated that we live in a system of what he calls inverted totalitarianism. And we’ve got to push back against those corporate forces, even if it’s a kind of protest vote which I intend to do.

The 2010 Citizens United Ruling is unjustly criticized. All forms of campaign finance laws which are aimed at "keeping money out of politics" to various degrees are actually, in their real effects, used to suppress non-mainstream viewpoints. Campaign finance laws should never exist in any form, if only from the legal perspective of the First Amendment. Sure, some candidates can "buy" elections, to use the term very loosely. But do you think that doesn't happen now? Do you think that didn't happen in 2008? Do you think it didn't happen in 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, or any previous election year?

The beautiful thing about advertising, from the perspective of competitors, is that there are diminishing returns. Incremental increases in donations to relative unknowns produce vastly more traction than those same increases in donations to the big dogs or the incumbents. Limiting free speech in favor of non mainstream views is more conducive to maintaining the single-party, two-flavor system we have now.