Poll : Should voting be Mandatory ?

[jamesrage]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

People that are ignorant of what their vote will do shouldn't be allowed to vote. Look at all the fools in 2000 babbling about how Gore won the "popluar vote" therefore he should be President. Not a one of those idiots had a clue.

I am sure that your cousins who wore the white hoods from long ago thought exactly how you felt.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Libertarians will never be a big party. Why? because they don;t feel very solid. Democrats leftists. Republicans are rightists. Libertarians are split. They feel to radical to become a dominant party. Contrary to what scarecrow just said, Libertarians don't make much of a difference. Nader's party of "oh I don't care I'm voting Nader" and " Hey look! Nader's on the ballot" got more people than the libertarians in both 2000 and 2004.

However I am a third Party guy even though I know that my vote doesn't really matter. Most of the time however, I don't vote period becuase all the candidates are evil and none of them are lesser.

Hey! Ralph Nader is the most important political figure of the 2000 presidential campaign. He's the only third party candidate in history to throw the election from one candidate to the other.

Thanks, Ralph!

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

I am sure that your cousins who wore the white hoods from long ago thought exactly how you felt.

Then can we say that your view is that people should vote even when they have no clue about the credentials or ideology of the person they are voting for or what their vote means regarding issues on the ballot?

Could you please explain your rationale for why this would be a good thing?

 

[Billo_Really]

Voting should not be mandatory. Not yet. For democracy to work, you must have a well informed Republic. And at the moment, we are a very, very stupid nation.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Voting should not be mandatory. Not yet. For democracy to work, you must have a well informed Republic. And at the moment, we are a very, very stupid nation.

Agreed. Actually I don't think voting should be mandatory ever. And I'll agree with James Rage that neither should it be forbidden to any eligible voter though I very strongly urge the idiots who don't know jack to just stay home on election day. If only 10% of the people care enough to register, study the issues, and get to the polls, then we'll still get a better government than we will by a huge number of people voting for a pretty face, dictates of opportunists, or some other shallow or unethical criteria.

I, however, have no problem with people being required to identify themselves when they register to vote and being required to identify themselves again when they vote. And I have no problem with people having to haul their tushes off the couch and get themselves down to City Hall or some other specified place to physically register themselves to vote and then do it again to make it to the poll. I have no problem with a reasonable residency at a physical address being required to be eligible to vote--this prevents unscrupulous politicans from bussing in large numbers of people who have been bribed to vote a certain way.

On that last point, it should be a felony to coerce, bribe, or trick people into voting a certain way or deliberately voting illegally. (During the election of 2000, I was in line with a woman who was signing in to vote and noticed that her husband had already signed in. He had died 30 days before.) The only thing that should persuade anybody's vote are the campaign promises made or the track record of the person running.

 

[Billo_Really]

Orginally posted by AlbqOwl:
Agreed. Actually I don't think voting should be mandatory ever. And I'll agree with James Rage that neither should it be forbidden to any eligible voter though I very strongly urge the idiots who don't know jack to just stay home on election day. If only 10% of the people care enough to register, study the issues, and get to the polls, then we'll still get a better government than we will by a huge number of people voting for a pretty face, dictates of opportunists, or some other shallow or unethical criteria.

I, however, have no problem with people being required to identify themselves when they register to vote and being required to identify themselves again when they vote. And I have no problem with people having to haul their tushes off the couch and get themselves down to City Hall or some other specified place to physically register themselves to vote and then do it again to make it to the poll. I have no problem with a reasonable residency at a physical address being required to be eligible to vote--this prevents unscrupulous politicans from bussing in large numbers of people who have been bribed to vote a certain way.

On that last point, it should be a felony to coerce, bribe, or trick people into voting a certain way or deliberately voting illegally. (During the election of 2000, I was in line with a woman who was signing in to vote and noticed that her husband had already signed in. He had died 30 days before.) The only thing that should persuade anybody's vote are the campaign promises made or the track record of the person running.

I understand what your saying. And I don't necessarily disagree with it. I think, in addition, we should encourage everyone to register and to educate themselves on the issues. I feel that is the only way to offset the impact big dollar lobby groups have on our elections. Because of the cash they send the way of elected officials, they get their attention because they vote in blocks. However, if all the eligible voters in America voted, that would dilute their blocks to the point of impotance. Then their money would not be worth sh!t.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I understand what your saying. And I don't necessarily disagree with it. I think, in addition, we should encourage everyone to register and to educate themselves on the issues. I feel that is the only way to offset the impact big dollar lobby groups have on our elections. Because of the cash they send the way of elected officials, they get their attention because they vote in blocks. However, if all the eligible voters in America voted, that would dilute their blocks to the point of impotance. Then their money would not be worth sh!t.

I DON'T think we should encourage anyone to vote. The privilege should be arduously earned, and if it is, the people earning it will exercise it without prompting.

Big dollar groups have influence why? Because it costs a lot of money to get huge masses of ignorant voters to get in the mood to cast their votes the right way, just like it costs someone looking like Danny DeVito to get the chicks to get in the mood.

Reduce the pool of voters, restrict it to that group of people able to be aware of what their vote means, and the cost of reaching those voters will go down even as the difficulty of conning them goes up.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I understand what your saying. And I don't necessarily disagree with it. I think, in addition, we should encourage everyone to register and to educate themselves on the issues. I feel that is the only way to offset the impact big dollar lobby groups have on our elections. Because of the cash they send the way of elected officials, they get their attention because they vote in blocks. However, if all the eligible voters in America voted, that would dilute their blocks to the point of impotance. Then their money would not be worth sh!t.

Yes, it would be better if most eligible voters actually did register and actually did go to the polls and actually did cast an educated vote.

I don't, however, think the lobbyists are necessarily the problem. Everybody who has ever emailed or faxed or mailed a letter to his/her congressperson or senator or the Mayor or the governor's office or the White House is a lobbyist whether or not they group together to have a bigger voice. If we are members of AAA or AARP or a union or various hobby groups, etc. or if we purchase medical care or insurance or electricity, or gasoline, etc., we have people lobbying for (and against) our interests on multiple layers of government. Some of these groups actually do a valuable service even as they are self-serving. And some are destructive.

But you are correct that big block/big contributor lobbyists will definitely be diluted and will have less ability to 'buy' a candidate the more informed voters there are out there. In an ideal world, all eligible voters would be informed and knowledgeable and vote intelligently.

Unfortunately, too many people can't say who their Congressperson or senators are, who the key people are in most levels of government, or have a clue about the track record, voting record, or convictions of those they vote into government. They believe the hype that one candidate cares deeply about them and will make them beautiful, healthy, rich, and famous while the other candidate(s) represent the Devil himself. I don't want these going to the polls to vote for anything or anybody.

 

[Thorgasm]

Hey! Ralph Nader is the most important political figure of the 2000 presidential campaign. He's the only third party candidate in history to throw the election from one candidate to the other.

Thanks, Ralph!

I thought Ross Perot did that. :doh

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I thought Ross Perot did that. :doh

No, Ross Perot sucked equally from both sides. He wouldn't have been a factor at all if Bush hadn't been so bad.

Bush lost that election because he was an elitist oath-breaking ass that ticked off his own supporters. His conduct in the 1992 election was laughable, he even got caught looking at his watch during one of the presidential debates.

He didn't realize, until it was far too late, that he should have stepped down. Most of us realized it when a boob like Buchanan couuld pull 30% in the New Hampster primary against him.

Anyway, back to Perot. I'd have to chase the numbers, and they'd be hard to catch, now, but he didn't win enough in any state to swing any elections, especially when you consider that his support was a lot of the "None of the Others" type.

Nader, on the other hand, couldn't pull a Republican vote in with two hands and a locomotive. He drew only from the pool of Democrat/Left leaning types. And he pulled more than 70,000 votes in Floriduh! when Bush's margin of victory in that state was less than 2000 (pick your favorite counter for this one).

I can't wait for 2008 to see what boob the Republicans are going to put up against the Red Queen.

 

[Billo_Really]

Orginally posted by Scarecrow Akhbar:
I DON'T think we should encourage anyone to vote. The privilege should be arduously earned, and if it is, the people earning it will exercise it without prompting.

Big dollar groups have influence why? Because it costs a lot of money to get huge masses of ignorant voters to get in the mood to cast their votes the right way, just like it costs someone looking like Danny DeVito to get the chicks to get in the mood.

Reduce the pool of voters, restrict it to that group of people able to be aware of what their vote means, and the cost of reaching those voters will go down even as the difficulty of conning them goes up.

I don't consider voting necessarilly a privilege. I know it is, but I personnally consider it more of ones duty to their country. It is your civic duty to vote. That, along with paying taxes, is how you give back to your country.

 

[Billo_Really]

Orginally posted by AlbqOwl:
Unfortunately, too many people can't say who their Congressperson or senators are, who the key people are in most levels of government, or have a clue about the track record, voting record, or convictions of those they vote into government. They believe the hype that one candidate cares deeply about them and will make them beautiful, healthy, rich, and famous while the other candidate(s) represent the Devil himself. I don't want these going to the polls to vote for anything or anybody.

My Congressman is Rohrbaucker. I can't tell you how angry I am at him right now.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Hey! Ralph Nader is the most important political figure of the 2000 presidential campaign. He's the only third party candidate in history to throw the election from one candidate to the other.

Thanks, Ralph!

Well besides Perot and Teddy Roosevelt.... he sure was. I was refering more to the 2004 for election when I said his party was of people who don't care. In 2000 he had a party that consisted of liberals who didn't like Clintons politics and thus didn't like Gore.

 

[AlbqOwl]

My Congressman is Rohrbaucker. I can't tell you how angry I am at him right now.

What did the good congressman do to so offend you? (Personally, I would think twice about voting for somebody nobody could spell. :smile: )

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by AlbqOwl:
What did the good congressman do to so offend you?

He's running interference for Tom Delay trying to disrupt the investigation.

http://www.dccc.org/houseofscandal/members/DanaRohrbacherCA-46.html

Originally posted by AlbqOwl:
(Personally, I would think twice about voting for somebody nobody could spell.

My apologies to Mr. Rohrbacher.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I don't consider voting necessarilly a privilege. I know it is, but I personnally consider it more of ones duty to their country. It is your civic duty to vote. That, along with paying taxes, is how you give back to your country.

I'm so sick of that "give back" psychobabble liberal drooling crap.

The United States was formed as a nation of traders. The definition of trade is that two parties exchange equally valued goods or services freely with mutual consent. With trade, there's nothing to give back because nothing was unearned.

This babble about "giving back" is an insult to the American ideal of freedom.

 

[Thorgasm]

I'm so sick of that "give back" psychobabble liberal drooling crap.

The United States was formed as a nation of traders. The definition of trade is that two parties exchange equally valued goods or services freely with mutual consent.

This babble about "giving back" is an insult to the American ideal of freedom.

I am so sick of multiple adjective put downs. It's redundant, inflamatory, and useless to debate. It is also hypocritical to call something "psychobabble" while followed by "liberal drooling crap".

"With trade, there's nothing to give back because nothing was unearned." Is this a product of NCLB? Really, what school system was this gem a product of?

 

[Vandeervecken]

Mandatory voting is asinine. Don't we already have enough uninformed idiots voting?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
Mandatory voting is asinine. Don't we already have enough uninformed idiots voting?

You can say that again.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
I'm so sick of that "give back" psychobabble liberal drooling crap.

The United States was formed as a nation of traders. The definition of trade is that two parties exchange equally valued goods or services freely with mutual consent. With trade, there's nothing to give back because nothing was unearned.

This babble about "giving back" is an insult to the American ideal of freedom.

Let me put it this way, "How do you support your country?"
By living your life at someone else's expence?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Let me put it this way, "How do you support your country?"
By living your life at someone else's expence?

Ummm....I put in six years pushing submarines around, then the rest of the time I've obeyed the laws and supported myself.

The trip in the Navy was voluntary, the rest is a moral obligation on all of us.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I am so sick of multiple adjective put downs. It's redundant, inflamatory, and useless to debate. It is also hypocritical to call something "psychobabble" while followed by "liberal drooling crap".

"With trade, there's nothing to give back because nothing was unearned." Is this a product of NCLB? Really, what school system was this gem a product of?

No, "liberal drooling crap" isn't a standard component of "psychobabble", so it's perfectly legitimate to serialize the two adjectival phrases.

And if it wasn't inflamatory, it wouldn't be fun.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
Ummm....I put in six years pushing submarines around, then the rest of the time I've obeyed the laws and supported myself.

The trip in the Navy was voluntary, the rest is a moral obligation on all of us.

Now let me ask you this question, "How does a civilian support his country?"

 

[Thorgasm]

No, "liberal drooling crap" isn't a standard component of "psychobabble", so it's perfectly legitimate to serialize the two adjectival phrases.

And if it wasn't inflamatory, it wouldn't be fun.

Save it for the basement. You can strive for your one-party system (dictatorship) without being inflamatory.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Now let me ask you this question, "How does a civilian support his country?"

The answer was embedded in post 121:

then the rest of the time I've obeyed the laws and supported myself.

That's it.