• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sign the Voters Bill of Rights

bfeverish

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's something I think everyone can get behind.


http://stayinformed.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=480&mode=&order=0&thold=0

 
Thanks!

80% of this is excellent and job well done. But, I cannot sign this for 2 reasons.

1. "Administrators should help increase voter confidence by inviting non-partisan observers, both domestic and international, to observe all aspects of voting procedures."

It is OUR election and international folks should have no part of it.

Also, how on earth are you going to get "non-partisan" administrators to run the elections? That is just silly - there is no such thing as "non-partisan" - unless you waive your right to vote. Then it would cost millions to pay for these election officals.

2. "The permanent disenfranchisement of former felons, a practice that falls outside of international or even U.S. norms, is an unreasonable restriction that creates subcategories of citizenship."

It is within the states right. I could give a damn about international norms.
 
I like it! Solving this election mess should be a number national priority. I'm not sure I agree with everything contained within i.e. "Re-enfranchise Ex-Felons" not a big fan of the messing with the states rights to make their own rules. But this election stiuation has become such a nightmare and NEEDS serious overhauls, I'm honestly willing to settle for some bad to get a lot of good. I mean if we could ensure every voters vote counted I'd be as happy as a monkey with a new set of truck keys.:monkey
 
That monkey gets me everytime. :rofl
 
Screw the states, I'm very republican on this issue. We need a federalized system of elections. And a fair one. We need e-voting machines not from Diebold, and that have a two copy reciept program (one for voter, one for recount records). Our election system is a joke, I can't believe we try to impose it on other countries.
 
We don't ry to impose "it" on other nations. By and large the voting systems we impose on them is more fair and balanced. Huh, fair and balanced, I've heard that somewhere else but I can't seem to put my finger on it.

Screw the states is a republican stance?
 
Strong central government is a republican issue. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican, was part of the Whig party first.

States rights generally democratic. Mainly because the Republicans were for strong government.
 
HeyJoeo

Strong central government is a republican issue. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican, was part of the Whig party first.

States rights generally democratic. Mainly because the Republicans were for strong government.
You must be smoking crack. For shits sake man. The democrats in the last 20 or so years have been trying to expand the federal governments role. Now I relize that it can be said that Bush has been expanding governments role with the patriot act, the encreased budgets expenses, etc. However the fact that you think the republicans want a stronger central government more so than the Dems makes me laugh. Wake up smell the coffee dude.:rofl
 
But hasn't it been the GOP's stance that the feds should be able to dictate to the states regarding rules and regs? I mean the GOP practically goes bat shit crazy when states pass laws like medical marijuana, or assisted suicide.
 
But hasn't it been the GOP's stance that the feds should be able to dictate to the states regarding rules and regs? I mean the GOP practically goes bat shit crazy when states pass laws like medical marijuana, or assisted suicide.
That is a excellent point I had not considered to be honest with you. Shit now I'm going to have to think about this.:screwy
 
I'm talking about the beginnings of the republican and democratic parties we know today.
 
See I think Heyjoeo is right. I think the States rights issue is Demo. The fact that the GOP has had a "smaller governemt is better governemnt" philosophy does not equate regarding the issue of States rights.
 
heyjoeo: I'm talking about the beginnings of the republican and democratic parties we know today.

If you look at history, you can see that values have switched sides several times. The beginning is not a reasonable place to look for current positions.

Pacridge: But hasn't it been the GOP's stance that the feds should be able to dictate to the states regarding rules and regs? I mean the GOP practically goes bat shit crazy when states pass laws like medical marijuana, or assisted suicide.

You are talking "conservative" values vs states rights here. Many people - regardless of political offiliation go bad shit over those ideas. One can be a Democrat and still be conservative. One can still be a Republican and have liberal values and want more federal expansion.


 
Yes, but I think it's been the Dems position all along that if the people of the State want to pass this law or that law then fine. It tends to be the GOP interested in interjecting when they find the laws to their disliking. As always, I could be wrong.


Keep in mind I'm in no way weighing in on those right or wrong. As I honestly have no idea which philosophy makes more sense.
 
Popular Soverignty - My main man the "Little Giant" Stephen Douglas' idea. A democrat.
 
heyjoeo said:
Popular Soverignty - My main man the "Little Giant" Stephen Douglas' idea. A democrat.
Not really. A guy named George Dallas came up with the concept. He was Vice President from under Polk and served from 1845-1849. Then a another guy named Lewis Cass used it a lot in his Presidential campiagn in 1848, he lost. But Douglas did like the concept and was a big fan.
 
Pacridge said:
But hasn't it been the GOP's stance that the feds should be able to dictate to the states regarding rules and regs? I mean the GOP practically goes bat shit crazy when states pass laws like medical marijuana, or assisted suicide.
Honestly, no offense intended Pacridge, but you are either very young, and/or very misinformed. While it is true that the Republicans (or conservatives more accurately) are occasionally hypocritical on the issue of "State's Rights" (depending on the "right" being considered and in context), It is relatively common knowledge that the entire existance of the modern Democratic Party (since at least FDR in 1932)and the "progressive" movement in general, has been based upon and has generally favored a strong centralized National government over power being dispersed to the states/people. Back then. the only major issue that the old Democrats favored State's rights on was the race issue (segregation)and ironically, the (national) civil rights laws/rights would never have passed without the support of the Republican Party.

So while in a very few single issues like legal medical herb (which I fully support) and others, the "conservatives" may stumble over and abandon their own "State's rights" rhetoric frm time to time, your implied notion, that the Dems/Progressives are "for" smaller/less intrusive/less controling National government and more "local control" is a very bad joke with no punchline or foundation or set-up. Of course, you probably think that the overwhelming influence in the news media, television, film, and academe (higher education)is "right-wing".
 

Oh really? You mean like state laws that restrict/abolish abortion? How about Federal minimum wage laws? So the next time Teddy Kennedy and the Democrats propose raising the Federal minimum wage over and above what the "states" (and the people in them) support, you are going to stand in principle with most Republicans against the Democrats in Congress?
 
Well I'm not young, Although rumor has it I used to be, so I must be, as you put it, really misinformed. Though in your arguements you gave examples where each party used the federal control over States rights to their own choosing. I.E. medical marijuana for the Dem's and abortion limits for the GOP. But overall you seem to be saying that it's the Dems that favor the feds being able to control the States. I'm willing to accept that, as I've said all along, I could be wrong. I honestly didn't know what the parties outlook was on this issue.

For the record, No I don't think that the media, news and certainly not higher education (there's a reason the most popular B.A. degree in America is call a liberal arts degree) is bias to the right wing. Personally I feel it's really a lot more even then either side's willing to admit. What I do think though is that the right side of that balance spends a whole lot of time screaming about the left wing media bias. Where as the left seems to says the same thing just- not in a scream.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…