Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[Raz]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Agree with with cjppjc. Voting restrictions are a new talking point churned out by neo-conservative think tanks.

One look at the audience at the Republican convention tells the story, middle-aged and older and very white. Restrictions a way to ensure more voters are middle-aged whites, at a time when the demographics of the U.S. are rapidly changing to more minorities (especially Hispanics) who tend to vote Democrat.

It's a rear-guard action to blunt all this implies. Voter id laws are merely the first round, in what will be a continuing skirmish about who can vote over the next few years. In the end it's a losing batle (over 50% of babies born in U.S. last year were of minority origin).

To paraphrase the election ads "I'm middle-aged white and I do not support voter restriction laws".

First off, Neocons are NOT conservative. They only fake it while they start wars and spend money like Democrats.

But of course, all conservatives - especially any who also happen to be Republicans - are racists who only want to suppress minority voting.
Actually, what they want to suppress is fraud.

Voter fraud is real. As Mayor Daily of Chicago (corruption Ground Zero) once said, "Vote early and vote often".

You must show ID to cash a check, buy liquor, drive an automobile, obtain unemployment benefits, and a dozen other transactions or tasks in everyday life.
How is producing your identification at the polling place descriminatory or suppressive?

[World Traveler]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Agree with with cjppjc. Voting restrictions are a new talking point churned out by neo-conservative think tanks.

One look at the audience at the Republican convention tells the story, middle-aged and older and very white. Restrictions a way to ensure more voters are middle-aged whites, at a time when the demographics of the U.S. are rapidly changing to more minorities (especially Hispanics) who tend to vote Democrat.

It's a rear-guard action to blunt all this implies. Voter id laws are merely the first round, in what will be a continuing skirmish about who can vote over the next few years. In the end it's a losing batle (over 50% of babies born in U.S. last year were of minority origin).

To paraphrase the election ads "I'm middle-aged white and I do not support voter restriction laws".

[cjppjc]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

There is alot of elitist talk here about who should be allowed to vote.


First they wouldn't let the ???? vote. I didn't speak out because I wasn't ????
Next they wouldn't let the ???? vote. I didn't speak out because I wasn't ????
Then they wouldn't let me vote. And there was nobody left to speak out for my right to vote.

[Forrest]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

For my money, the only way to have a responsible voter of any age is for them to have skin in the game, and knowledge of the game.

Simply having achieved the vaunted age of responsibility to drink at 21 is not, in my mind, sufficient for responsibility for our nation's future.

Put the franchise to those that serve the state, making it a requirement for every high school graduate to serve, either in the National Guard, or regular Military for two years after high school, and make sure the children, (since it is a rare 18 year old that can even think from A to B to C) have to pass a 1960's civics exam...you know, before all the rewriting of history started. As for those that don't bother with high school, keep them from being involved in the goverment.

[Woodsman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Since we're dreaming out loud here, I'd happily support this proposal so long as it is accompanied by an exemption from taxation, jury service and selective service/conscription until the full rights of citizenship are granted upon reaching that magical age of wisdom and sagacity. Surely we'd see lower taxes and less foreign adventurism under that regime.

Then again, under such a gerontocracy we would have lost out on the contributions of young people like George Washington who was in his early 20s when he was given command of the Virginia Regiment following the death of Gen. Braddock. Then there was that mush headed youngster Sam Adams who was in his mid-20s when first elected to office. Notorious marijuana cultivator Thos. Jefferson was a mere 26 years of age when first elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and that slacker Andrew Jackson was 29 when he was elected as Tennessee's first congressman.

You'll recall the old saw "never trust anyone over thirty." It's been 20+ years since I saw life through the eyes of a 30 year old and I still don't trust the geezers. The "economic, moral and political" events of the past several years have given me no reason to abandon this belief.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

My wife once told me that she has little regard for most of the opinions of anyone under the age of thirty.
It sounded harsh at the time but now I not only see her point - I agree with it. (Not opinions about food or furniture but specifically in matters economic, moral and political.)

For good reason the founders limited the age of eligibility for the presidency to 35 years and for senators the age of thirty.
Personally, I think the drinking age should be left to the states, or lowered to 18, and the voting age raised to thirty.

Now we're talkin'!

[Raz]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

My wife once told me that she has little regard for most of the opinions of anyone under the age of thirty.
It sounded harsh at the time but now I not only see her point - I agree with it. (Not opinions about food or furniture but specifically in matters economic, moral and political.)

For good reason the founders limited the age of eligibility for the presidency to 35 years and for senators the age of thirty.
Personally, I think the drinking age should be left to the states, or lowered to 18, and the voting age raised to thirty.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Sir, I'm no one's protege. And as for building strawmen, I can't decide which is the better example of the practice - your backhanded compliment regarding human agency or the quip on children voting.

I'll leave you the last word, since it's quite evident to me you've achieved an impenetrable degree of certainty on this matter.

I think the tone of my response was on the conservative side of what was warranted given your implication that I supported the repeal of numerous Amendments that I have no fundamental problem with. It is true though, that I think that enough "wrong people" are voting to propose adjustments to the existing system. I simply have no use for racial collectivism.

The matter of children voting is not just a matter of tongue-in-cheek rhetorical sparring. It is an illustrative example of the principle that standards for restricting people from voting are not just appropriate but already widely supported. Why is the voting age not set at 16 in this country, when it is common for people of that age to take their lives and the lives of others in their hands in the operation of motor vehicles? Why not 17 with parents' permission or 18 without, which is the same age restriction for military service? People are children for a very long period of time in many cases--sometimes you will meet 14 year olds who are not children, but in our infantilizing society it is more common to see 25 year olds who are still children in most non-physical attributes than to see even 18 year olds who you would be hard-pressed to describe as children. I am glad at least that the voting age is not lower, but simply setting the bar there is not conducive to maintaining a republic. Simply surviving to 18 years of age (or 21 previously) is insufficient, in my view, to have a say in matters of governance.

The principle that people should be restricted from voting for various reasons has significant precedence and very broad support, depending on the level of restriction. It is my view that the ability to vote for representation should be earned and not bestowed.

[lektrode]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

not me, Woodsman - i just like to watch (learn from) the battle of the intellects - tho i dont enjoy it when its gets personal/verbally-textually violent

sorry if i gave the impression of egging-on that type of exchange.

[Woodsman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Something tells me Lek, you were one of those kids in the playground standing in the circle yelling "fight, fight, fight."

[lektrode]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

aw come on, mr woodsman - this was just getting good!

[Woodsman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Sir, I'm no one's protege. And as for building strawmen, I can't decide which is the better example of the practice - your backhanded compliment regarding human agency or the quip on children voting.

I'll leave you the last word, since it's quite evident to me you've achieved an impenetrable degree of certainty on this matter.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Way to make a beautiful strawman. Are you c1ue's protege?

Well you're partially correct in your last sentence. People are the sources of all non-natural "problems" and all non-natural "solutions" if you believe in such things in socio-political or socio-economic discourses, because only people can act. The only other source of change is nature, though the effects of drought and tides pale in comparison to the effects of loud special interests.

I didn't mention any of those Amendments except the 26th, and yes the 26th has not quite worked out very well. Neither has the 17th. I have no inherent problems with the Amendments that allowed people to vote regardless of sex or race, of course. That doesn't mean I don't support standards for voting.

Since you evidently support the 26th Amendment, would you support a new Amendment to lower the voting age to 16? To 14? To 6 years old? I think that even you would acknowledge the need for standards when determining who can vote. Whereas you may be comfortable with allowing children to vote (and at 18 years old, many people are still children), I am not. I am also not in favor of allowing people to vote who lack any significant understanding of the Constitution. What makes your standard for voting better than my standard?

[Woodsman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Why not just go back to the good old days and limit the franchise to white male Anglo Saxon property owners. Maybe we can throw in a religious test and a literacy test, too? The 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments just don't seem to be working out, because clearly it's the voters and citizens who are the source of our problems.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

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

c1ue, "separate but equal" is democracy in action. The tyranny of the majority is a very real threat. The closer you get to the individual person (meaning state instead of federal, county instead of state, city or municipality instead of county), the more democratic you become, which lends itself towards potential disaster.

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.

"Freedom" is not my primary value; liberty is. Democracy is a direct threat to liberty, and pure democracy leaves room for absolutely zero liberty.

Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable, though in practice it is communism and fascism that have been empirically worse with their spectacular costs to human life and wellbeing. Only a republic which resists the whims of its population to an extent can be considered in the league of "good governance," while every other system is fundamentally flawed. It is in democracies, communist oligarchies, and dictatorships where the rule of law is used against people to the benefit of the politically powerful, while it is in republics where the rule of law is used to protect people against tyranny.

"One person, one vote" is far too close to democracy than I consider to be safe for prosperity and liberty. Empirically, the founding fathers agreed writ large with the notion that democracy is horrible--that's why they gave us mostly a republic while denouncing democracy. Additionally, it would seem that there is at least some acknowledgement of the danger of democracy because we retain many republican traditions, including the fact that we don't actually have a "one person, one vote" system, unless you consider my 5 month old to not be a person. Convicted felons and both "legal" and "illegal" aliens are also people, yet unable to vote. Trends towards democracy are inherently dangerous because the whims of the public, who are by absolute necessity quite ignorant on numerous matters of government, are fickle and prone to things like what you worry about--money buying influence. That is why I and numerous of the founding fathers do not support democracy or trends towards it. There can be such things as balance and moderation in terms of how democratic a system of government is.