Obama wants mandatory voting

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Well, it's unconstitutional, of course. And a terrible idea for good governance -- you're taking the people who demonstrably know less and care less about government and putting them in charge of it.

But there could be some interesting consequences if everybody voted. For one thing, abortion would sudden be much more heavily restricted.

Not unconstitutional.

I wish conservatives would stop pretending they know anything about the constitution.

Any state that wants to implement mandatory voting is free to do so under the constitution.

And a great idea. Rather than spending all our time preventing people from voting, if everybody has to vote, maybe we'll invest in making sure we have an educated electorate - as the founders intended.

That would be a small step in the right direction - the opposite direction from the GOP push of recent times.

No it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be any of those things. Again, it wouldn't change who the parties have as candidates, and it wouldn't make any sense to add more bloat to the government. Someone would have to enforce this, and as much as you love growing government, it is yet another idiotic idea in a long list of stupid ideas.

How many more examples of government growth and their failures do you need to see Parser? I noticed you put a maybe in this post. Yes, it's a BIG maybe.

Why do you people always count on government to fix problems from the place it was knowingly created? It's the oldest trick in the book. Create a problem, spread fear of problem, offer to fix the problem for a price, make a deal to have people pay you to fix the problem, problem not only doesn't ever truly get fixed, it evolves, as does the entire cycle.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Well, it's unconstitutional, of course. And a terrible idea for good governance -- you're taking the people who demonstrably know less and care less about government and putting them in charge of it.

But there could be some interesting consequences if everybody voted. For one thing, abortion would sudden be much more heavily restricted.

Not unconstitutional.

I wish conservatives would stop pretending they know anything about the constitution.

Any state that wants to implement mandatory voting is free to do so under the constitution.

And a great idea. Rather than spending all our time preventing people from voting, if everybody has to vote, maybe we'll invest in making sure we have an educated electorate - as the founders intended.

That would be a small step in the right direction - the opposite direction from the GOP push of recent times.

No it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be any of those things. Again, it wouldn't change who the parties have as candidates, and it wouldn't make any sense to add more bloat to the government. Someone would have to enforce this, and as much as you love growing government, it is yet another idiotic idea in a long list of stupid ideas.

How many more examples of government growth and their failures do you need to see Parser? I noticed you put a maybe in this post. Yes, it's a BIG maybe.

Why do you people always count on government to fix problems from the place it was knowingly created? It's the oldest trick in the book. Create a problem, spread fear of problem, offer to fix the problem for a price, make a deal to have people pay you to fix the problem, problem not only doesn't ever truly get fixed, it evolves, as does the entire cycle.

It might be fun, just to see the liberals scream bloody murder when they began to see the effects. I mentioned one potential example in an earlier post.

But putting aside specific issues, consider what the single most important factor has almost always been in close national elections: Turnout. The Democrats live on their turnout efforts. That gets negated if everybody has to turn out.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Well, it's unconstitutional, of course. And a terrible idea for good governance -- you're taking the people who demonstrably know less and care less about government and putting them in charge of it.

But there could be some interesting consequences if everybody voted. For one thing, abortion would sudden be much more heavily restricted.

Not unconstitutional.

I wish conservatives would stop pretending they know anything about the constitution.

Any state that wants to implement mandatory voting is free to do so under the constitution.

And a great idea. Rather than spending all our time preventing people from voting, if everybody has to vote, maybe we'll invest in making sure we have an educated electorate - as the founders intended.

That would be a small step in the right direction - the opposite direction from the GOP push of recent times.

No it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be any of those things. Again, it wouldn't change who the parties have as candidates, and it wouldn't make any sense to add more bloat to the government. Someone would have to enforce this, and as much as you love growing government, it is yet another idiotic idea in a long list of stupid ideas.

How many more examples of government growth and their failures do you need to see Parser? I noticed you put a maybe in this post. Yes, it's a BIG maybe.

Why do you people always count on government to fix problems from the place it was knowingly created? It's the oldest trick in the book. Create a problem, spread fear of problem, offer to fix the problem for a price, make a deal to have people pay you to fix the problem, problem not only doesn't ever truly get fixed, it evolves, as does the entire cycle.

It might be fun, just to see the liberals scream bloody murder when they began to see the effects. I mentioned one potential example in an earlier post.

But putting aside specific issues, consider what the single most important factor has almost always been in close national elections: Turnout. The Democrats live on their turnout efforts. That gets negated if everybody has to turn out.

I don't know, you might be surprised:

Link

 

[KennyPowers_96]

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by HallofFame:
I can assume that people who are wanting this mandatory are also wanting to bring back the draft.  Isn't serving your county also a civic duty just like voting or does that not fit your agenda. 


I was 1A in the draft.  Its OK with me if all young people are required to serve.  I did. 

Will be wearing brand name bank uniforms or just the old Oil company fatigues like usual?

I'm assuming you got drafted in the 60's/70's to fight a backward war to benefit a few while countless families were altered in a negative way?

I appreciate your service, but cannot see why or how you support a draft.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Well, it's unconstitutional, of course. And a terrible idea for good governance -- you're taking the people who demonstrably know less and care less about government and putting them in charge of it.

But there could be some interesting consequences if everybody voted. For one thing, abortion would sudden be much more heavily restricted.

Not unconstitutional.

I wish conservatives would stop pretending they know anything about the constitution.

Any state that wants to implement mandatory voting is free to do so under the constitution.

And a great idea. Rather than spending all our time preventing people from voting, if everybody has to vote, maybe we'll invest in making sure we have an educated electorate - as the founders intended.

That would be a small step in the right direction - the opposite direction from the GOP push of recent times.

No it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be any of those things. Again, it wouldn't change who the parties have as candidates, and it wouldn't make any sense to add more bloat to the government. Someone would have to enforce this, and as much as you love growing government, it is yet another idiotic idea in a long list of stupid ideas.

How many more examples of government growth and their failures do you need to see Parser? I noticed you put a maybe in this post. Yes, it's a BIG maybe.

Why do you people always count on government to fix problems from the place it was knowingly created? It's the oldest trick in the book. Create a problem, spread fear of problem, offer to fix the problem for a price, make a deal to have people pay you to fix the problem, problem not only doesn't ever truly get fixed, it evolves, as does the entire cycle.

It might be fun, just to see the liberals scream bloody murder when they began to see the effects. I mentioned one potential example in an earlier post.

But putting aside specific issues, consider what the single most important factor has almost always been in close national elections: Turnout. The Democrats live on their turnout efforts. That gets negated if everybody has to turn out.

I don't know, you might be surprised:

That's interesting.....thanks for the link. It isn't quite as cut-and-dried as the part you pasted here, but it's interesting, and it certainly shows why the Dems want to force all the uninformed people to vote.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

That's interesting.....thanks for the link. It isn't quite as cut-and-dried as the part you pasted here, but it's interesting, and it certainly shows why the Dems want to force all the uninformed people to vote.

I figured it had to work out to the D's favor if BHO is pimping it. Lets talk constitutionality. Several posters have broached the subject, but what is the basis for saying mandatory voting would actually violate some part of the constitution?

 

[dandh]

Originally posted by augHAWK:
It amazes me that people are so eager for more government control and regulation. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea and the argument that it would somehow enhance democracy is the largest load of deuce I've heard in a long time. You do not promote democratic principles by enacting measures that promote tyranny.

Liberty is a cornerstone of our country. Some may detest this (as often seems the case on this board), but it is this very principle that gives you the right to speak against it. The more we allow government to interfere in our lives, the more it will do so. Government should regulate only when necessary; never when merely convenient. I know many here may disagree, but they shouldn't. Today increased governmental authority may further your agenda. But it's a slippery slope. Tomorrow it may destroy your agenda (for starters) and forbid you from saying a damn word about it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Great post, aughawk.

Mandatory voting is the antithesis of freedom. I don't see how anyone who values liberty could embrace it.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by dandh:

Originally posted by augHAWK:
It amazes me that people are so eager for more government control and regulation. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea and the argument that it would somehow enhance democracy is the largest load of deuce I've heard in a long time. You do not promote democratic principles by enacting measures that promote tyranny.

Liberty is a cornerstone of our country. Some may detest this (as often seems the case on this board), but it is this very principle that gives you the right to speak against it. The more we allow government to interfere in our lives, the more it will do so. Government should regulate only when necessary; never when merely convenient. I know many here may disagree, but they shouldn't. Today increased governmental authority may further your agenda. But it's a slippery slope. Tomorrow it may destroy your agenda (for starters) and forbid you from saying a damn word about it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Great post, aughawk.

Mandatory voting is the antithesis of freedom. I don't see how anyone who values liberty could embrace it.

Because you recognize the elitism and apathy of the present system is a threat to liberty. I don't know how anyone who is too lazy to vote could honestly say they value liberty at all. Their liberty is pretty cheaply bought.

 

[Lone Clone]

Violates the First Amendment, based on the fact that the decision not to participate in the process is a form of political speech.

Here's one argument against mandatory voting, FWIW:

=============
A Case Against Mandatory Voting
Government should not force people to be free.
By Fred L. Smith - 7.25.11




Big government "solutions" for every social problem under the sun are all around us. I thought I'd seen them all -- until recently, when I found myself debating a statist proposal to cure apathy. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and I recently debated mandatory voting. He argued in favor and I in opposition. Ornstein brought up many interesting points, however, and I feel compelled to present my thorough responses below. I have always held the expansion of liberty as the most important goal of public policy, but it cannot be achieved through forceful regulation. The use of force to encourage freedom, I believe, is self-contradictory and practically and morally wrong.
Mandatory attendance at polls is still mandatory voting.
Ornstein was quick to point out that he doesn't necessarily support mandatory voting, but rather, in accordance with the system currently in place in Australia, "mandatory attendance at the polls." To me, this is just an attempt to deflect attention from the "mandatory" part. Poll "attendees" are still required to cast a ballot, and in Australia those who fail to do so -- even if they showed up at the polls -- can be prosecuted. Even choosing "none of the above" or "X," as is possible in Australia, involves casting a vote.
Ornstein touted as a success the fact that, under Australia's compulsory system, only about three percent of voters write in "X." Meanwhile, in America, over 40 percent of eligible voters don't even go to the polls in any given election. So Australia is better off, right? If Ornstein's goal is to get only three percent of eligible American voters choosing "none of the above," then he will also have to deal with 37 percent of uninformed, disinterested, and apathetic Americans being forced to cast ballots for candidates about whom they know little, if anything at all. What good could come of that?
Consensus is not a democratic value.
In his previous writings on the topic, Ornstein argues that mandatory voting will bring America to the center and eliminate the "polarizing" effect of partisan politics, especially in primary elections. His theory is that elective voting creates an environment where parties stir up their bases, leading to the election of increasingly more liberal Democrats and increasingly more conservative Republicans. With all of these radicals in office, he argues, "valuable Congressional time is spent on frivolous or narrow issues (flag burning, same-sex marriage) that are intended only to spur on the party bases and ideological extremes. Consequently, important, complicated issues (pension and health-care reform) get short shrift."
Who decides which issues are important? Shouldn't politicians respond to what their constituents tell them is important? I chided Ornstein for trying to make everyone play "nice," as if politics could somehow lead to consensus through a utopian deliberative process. The Australian system he cites has not produced a placid political process by any means -- and it's already been in use for decades.
Jury duty and voting duty serve different purposes.
The most common argument put forth by supporters of compulsory voting is that, just as Americans have a civic obligation to perform jury duty, they should face a similar obligation to vote. This seems like a tempting argument, but it is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution specify that both criminal and civil defendants have the right to a jury trial by their peers. For you to enjoy that right, your peers -- and you in turn -- must serve on a jury. This is one of the few instances where the Constitution compels citizens into service. There is no constitutional right to serve on the jury -- it is a constitutional requirement on all voting citizens. This compelled service is correctly called a civic duty.
Voting is very different. No less than five constitutional amendments mention the right to vote, but nowhere in the Constitution is voting defined as a civic duty. As such, jury members are required to listen to both sides and then carefully deliberate before reaching a decision. Voters cannot be forced to listen to hours of campaign speeches before voting.
Most importantly, jury trials and elections serve different purposes in the American system of government. Juries act as a check on the power of the state, by shifting some of the judicial decision-making power to private citizens. Voting, by contrast, is the process by which citizens delegate power to government. Therefore, compulsory voting would entail forcing large numbers of people to make an uninformed decision on a matter of crucial importance.
Ornstein eventually conceded that compulsory voting would require "trivial" enforcement costs and would constitute a "trivial" loss of freedom. Yet the cumulative impact of past "trivial" costs has created today's huge budget deficit. And even "trivial" losses of freedoms over time move us in the direction of tyranny. Opinions may differ on whether greater voter turnout is a good thing, but no one should support policies designed to force people to be free.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Well, it's unconstitutional, of course. And a terrible idea for good governance -- you're taking the people who demonstrably know less and care less about government and putting them in charge of it.

But there could be some interesting consequences if everybody voted. For one thing, abortion would sudden be much more heavily restricted.

Not unconstitutional.

I wish conservatives would stop pretending they know anything about the constitution.

Any state that wants to implement mandatory voting is free to do so under the constitution.

And a great idea. Rather than spending all our time preventing people from voting, if everybody has to vote, maybe we'll invest in making sure we have an educated electorate - as the founders intended.

That would be a small step in the right direction - the opposite direction from the GOP push of recent times.

No it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be any of those things. Again, it wouldn't change who the parties have as candidates, and it wouldn't make any sense to add more bloat to the government. Someone would have to enforce this, and as much as you love growing government, it is yet another idiotic idea in a long list of stupid ideas.

How many more examples of government growth and their failures do you need to see Parser? I noticed you put a maybe in this post. Yes, it's a BIG maybe.

Why do you people always count on government to fix problems from the place it was knowingly created? It's the oldest trick in the book. Create a problem, spread fear of problem, offer to fix the problem for a price, make a deal to have people pay you to fix the problem, problem not only doesn't ever truly get fixed, it evolves, as does the entire cycle.

Amen!!

Counting on government to fix the problem is the product of the social conditioning from what you just eloquently described in that paragraph.

And, the idea that this will somehow diminish the rigged aspect of the game is also a falsehood. The candidates are still ringers for the power structure. To believe that the existing power structure is suddenly philanthropic, and handing-over the reins by FORCED VOTING, is revealing of how far gone you are. Jailers don't hand prisoners the keys. If anything, this wwill decrease the choices even more. Where you once at least had 3rd party choices on a ballot (but, the media and cycle strcuture prevents them from being elected), now you'll ONLY see the 2 flunkies on a ballot. Both pre-chosen and the illusion of choice is now even more deeply-embedded in the culture and AGAINST THE LAW if you don't participate!

 

[dandh]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by dandh:

Originally posted by augHAWK:
It amazes me that people are so eager for more government control and regulation. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea and the argument that it would somehow enhance democracy is the largest load of deuce I've heard in a long time. You do not promote democratic principles by enacting measures that promote tyranny.

Liberty is a cornerstone of our country. Some may detest this (as often seems the case on this board), but it is this very principle that gives you the right to speak against it. The more we allow government to interfere in our lives, the more it will do so. Government should regulate only when necessary; never when merely convenient. I know many here may disagree, but they shouldn't. Today increased governmental authority may further your agenda. But it's a slippery slope. Tomorrow it may destroy your agenda (for starters) and forbid you from saying a damn word about it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Great post, aughawk.

Mandatory voting is the antithesis of freedom. I don't see how anyone who values liberty could embrace it.

Because you recognize the elitism and apathy of the present system is a threat to liberty. I don't know how anyone who is too lazy to vote could honestly say they value liberty at all. Their liberty is pretty cheaply bought.

So you save liberty by killing it. Brilliant.

Whether one values liberty or not, he deserves it as a natural right, along with life and the purfuit of happiness (love the colonial s).

Sloth isn't the only reason to not vote. One could refuse as a protest to the candidates, or simply to protest the system, or for any number of reasons.

Valuing liberty is a natural state. We all appreciate not having what we do dictated to us. Some of us just value it more than others. The older I get, the more I appreciate being able to live my life by my own rules and choices. Liberty, freedom, rights, however you want to put it, are of utmost importance. IMHO.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Well, it's unconstitutional, of course. And a terrible idea for good governance -- you're taking the people who demonstrably know less and care less about government and putting them in charge of it.

But there could be some interesting consequences if everybody voted. For one thing, abortion would sudden be much more heavily restricted.

Not unconstitutional.

I wish conservatives would stop pretending they know anything about the constitution.

Any state that wants to implement mandatory voting is free to do so under the constitution.

And a great idea. Rather than spending all our time preventing people from voting, if everybody has to vote, maybe we'll invest in making sure we have an educated electorate - as the founders intended.

That would be a small step in the right direction - the opposite direction from the GOP push of recent times.

No it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be any of those things. Again, it wouldn't change who the parties have as candidates, and it wouldn't make any sense to add more bloat to the government. Someone would have to enforce this, and as much as you love growing government, it is yet another idiotic idea in a long list of stupid ideas.

How many more examples of government growth and their failures do you need to see Parser? I noticed you put a maybe in this post. Yes, it's a BIG maybe.

Why do you people always count on government to fix problems from the place it was knowingly created? It's the oldest trick in the book. Create a problem, spread fear of problem, offer to fix the problem for a price, make a deal to have people pay you to fix the problem, problem not only doesn't ever truly get fixed, it evolves, as does the entire cycle.

Amen!!

Counting on government to fix the problem is the product of the social conditioning from what you just eloquently described in that paragraph.

And, the idea that this will somehow diminish the rigged aspect of the game is also a falsehood. The candidates are still ringers for the power structure. To believe that the existing power structure is suddenly philanthropic, and handing-over the reins by FORCED VOTING, is revealing of how far gone you are. Jailers don't hand prisoners the keys. If anything, this wwill decrease the choices even more. Where you once at least had 3rd party choices on a ballot (but, the media and cycle strcuture prevents them from being elected), now you'll ONLY see the 2 flunkies on a ballot. Both pre-chosen and the illusion of choice is now even more deeply-embedded in the culture and AGAINST THE LAW if you don't participate!




Yes voting is so 1700ish. We need to let the Corps and small groups of special interests continue to pick our leaders.

Glad to know everyone is happy with the way things are and oppose any changes or new ideas. Lets continue on as is.

But maybe we should support the new idea that it is against the law if you do participate no matter how long you have been a citizen of this country.

This post was edited on 3/21 11:37 AM by wildcatdad

 

[strummingram]

If you can explain to me how it is a fool-proof guarantee that the actual CHOICES will increase and the 2-Party paradigm, focsu, and worship, will disappear, I'm all ears.

I fail to see how government, which is one of the primary beneficiaries of the whole structure, is suddenly going to give the prisoners the keys to the prison.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by strummingram:
If you can explain to me how it is a fool-proof guarantee that the actual CHOICES will increase and the 2-Party paradigm, focsu, and worship, will disappear, I'm all ears.

I fail to see how government, which is one of the primary beneficiaries of the whole structure, is suddenly going to give the prisoners the keys to the prison.










You tell me how you are going to get change without doing anything? There are no guarantees. You are the prisoner, you seem to like it that way. You have been institutionalized to the point that you are afraid of change. There are plenty of plans being implemented to downsize and control and target the vote. There are few if any to expand and the vote. But there are a few. The Governor of Oregon is doing just that. We need to make it easier for citizens and encourage higher voter turnouts.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-automatic-voter-registration-20150317-story.html


This post was edited on 3/21 12:20 PM by wildcatdad

This post was edited on 3/21 12:25 PM by wildcatdad

 

[cruhawk]

Originally posted by linkshero:
the idea seems kind of counter to the whole idea of our constitution, but I'm no expert

It is. But that has never slowed this guy down.


If you want to change how we vote, try requiring a passing score (at least 40) on a 50 question exam, demonstrating a working knowledge of the Constitution, economics/business (including how free enterprise & capitalism work), American history (the real one, not the revised one taught in many public schools today), and civics. That would ensure that voters are actually qualified to vote. Guys like this--and just about any other liberal--would never win another election, at least not on a national level.
This post was edited on 3/21 12:39 PM by cruhawk

 

[cruhawk]

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by montross:



The POTUS just threw out having mandatory voting. This is just a threat to the poor minorities. How will these people be able to get to the polls when they are not even able to get to the DMV to get an ID?

,montross......that is a lie. A flame throwing lie. An idea that was taken fully out of context. And, typical.

Anyway....who would not support 100% voting in a democracy? You??

We don't vote in a democracy. We vote in a REPUBLIC. There's a difference.

Are we back in the third grade?

Ours is a democratic republic. These are not either-or things. There are different kinds of republics, depending on how the representatives are chosen and the folks they represent. Our constitution, as amended, tells us it is the people who are to be represented and the representatives are to be chosen by the people. That's known as a democracy.

So our republic is a democratic republic. It is correct to call our form of government (and also our society) by either term. It is stupidity to think they are opposites or in conflict.

This is not rocket science. Why is it that cons have so much trouble with this?

No, it's not. It's a REPUBLIC. Period.

This


X 1000

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by strummingram:
If you can explain to me how it is a fool-proof guarantee that the actual CHOICES will increase and the 2-Party paradigm, focsu, and worship, will disappear, I'm all ears.

I fail to see how government, which is one of the primary beneficiaries of the whole structure, is suddenly going to give the prisoners the keys to the prison.










You tell me how you are going to get change without doing anything? There are no guarantees. You are the prisoner, you seem to like it that way. You have been institutionalized to the point that you are afraid of change. There are plenty of plans being implemented to downsize and control and target the vote. There are few if any to expand and the vote. But there are a few. The Governor of Oregon is doing just that. We need to make it easier for citizens and encourage higher voter turnouts.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-automatic-voter-registration-20150317-story.html

This post was edited on 3/21 12:20 PM by wildcatdad
This post was edited on 3/21 12:25 PM by wildcatdad

I think you need to reevaluate who you're talking to, dude.

Where did I advocate doing nothing? By resisting this mandatory vote scheme, and criticizing the 2-party, rigged system; I'm somehow "doing nothing" to you? Hey, I'm all for citizens being better-informed and made more aware of their situation. I don't think FORCING THEM is the way to go! You people that advocate for compulsory actions rarely envision the side effects, let alone the actual results that compulsory/mandatory behavior brings.

The prison/prisoner was a metaphor. Good for Oregon, by the way. I just asked for details on how this federal mandate improves the situation for the average citizens. How does it insure we get more choice?

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by strummingram:
If you can explain to me how it is a fool-proof guarantee that the actual CHOICES will increase and the 2-Party paradigm, focsu, and worship, will disappear, I'm all ears.

I fail to see how government, which is one of the primary beneficiaries of the whole structure, is suddenly going to give the prisoners the keys to the prison.










You tell me how you are going to get change without doing anything? There are no guarantees. You are the prisoner, you seem to like it that way. You have been institutionalized to the point that you are afraid of change. There are plenty of plans being implemented to downsize and control and target the vote. There are few if any to expand and the vote. But there are a few. The Governor of Oregon is doing just that. We need to make it easier for citizens and encourage higher voter turnouts.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-automatic-voter-registration-20150317-story.html

This post was edited on 3/21 12:20 PM by wildcatdad
This post was edited on 3/21 12:25 PM by wildcatdad

I think you need to reevaluate who you're talking to, dude.

Where did I advocate doing nothing? By resisting this mandatory vote scheme, and criticizing the 2-party, rigged system; I'm somehow "doing nothing" to you? Hey, I'm all for citizens being better-informed and made more aware of their situation. I don't think FORCING THEM is the way to go! You people that advocate for compulsory actions rarely envision the side effects, let alone the actual results that compulsory/mandatory behavior brings.

The prison/prisoner was a metaphor. Good for Oregon, by the way. I just asked for details on how this federal mandate improves the situation for the average citizens. How does it insure we get more choice?

I got tired of hearing this "third party" and "two-party rigged system" mantra when I was a sophomore in college, which is about the time most people recognize it for what it is.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by strummingram:
If you can explain to me how it is a fool-proof guarantee that the actual CHOICES will increase and the 2-Party paradigm, focsu, and worship, will disappear, I'm all ears.

I fail to see how government, which is one of the primary beneficiaries of the whole structure, is suddenly going to give the prisoners the keys to the prison.










You tell me how you are going to get change without doing anything? There are no guarantees. You are the prisoner, you seem to like it that way. You have been institutionalized to the point that you are afraid of change. There are plenty of plans being implemented to downsize and control and target the vote. There are few if any to expand and the vote. But there are a few. The Governor of Oregon is doing just that. We need to make it easier for citizens and encourage higher voter turnouts.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-automatic-voter-registration-20150317-story.html

This post was edited on 3/21 12:20 PM by wildcatdad
This post was edited on 3/21 12:25 PM by wildcatdad

I think you need to reevaluate who you're talking to, dude.

Where did I advocate doing nothing? By resisting this mandatory vote scheme, and criticizing the 2-party, rigged system; I'm somehow "doing nothing" to you? Hey, I'm all for citizens being better-informed and made more aware of their situation. I don't think FORCING THEM is the way to go! You people that advocate for compulsory actions rarely envision the side effects, let alone the actual results that compulsory/mandatory behavior brings.

The prison/prisoner was a metaphor. Good for Oregon, by the way. I just asked for details on how this federal mandate improves the situation for the average citizens. How does it insure we get more choice?

I got tired of hearing this "third party" and "two-party rigged system" mantra when I was a sophomore in college, which is about the time most people recognize it for what it is.

Congratulations for being so easily broken and so early that you pose no threat to the status quo for at least 2/3 to 3/4 of your life! Quite an achievement.

This post was edited on 3/21 1:41 PM by strummingram

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by strummingram:
If you can explain to me how it is a fool-proof guarantee that the actual CHOICES will increase and the 2-Party paradigm, focsu, and worship, will disappear, I'm all ears.

I fail to see how government, which is one of the primary beneficiaries of the whole structure, is suddenly going to give the prisoners the keys to the prison.










You tell me how you are going to get change without doing anything? There are no guarantees. You are the prisoner, you seem to like it that way. You have been institutionalized to the point that you are afraid of change. There are plenty of plans being implemented to downsize and control and target the vote. There are few if any to expand and the vote. But there are a few. The Governor of Oregon is doing just that. We need to make it easier for citizens and encourage higher voter turnouts.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-automatic-voter-registration-20150317-story.html

This post was edited on 3/21 12:20 PM by wildcatdad
This post was edited on 3/21 12:25 PM by wildcatdad

I think you need to reevaluate who you're talking to, dude.

Where did I advocate doing nothing? By resisting this mandatory vote scheme, and criticizing the 2-party, rigged system; I'm somehow "doing nothing" to you? Hey, I'm all for citizens being better-informed and made more aware of their situation. I don't think FORCING THEM is the way to go! You people that advocate for compulsory actions rarely envision the side effects, let alone the actual results that compulsory/mandatory behavior brings.

The prison/prisoner was a metaphor. Good for Oregon, by the way. I just asked for details on how this federal mandate improves the situation for the average citizens. How does it insure we get more choice?

I got tired of hearing this "third party" and "two-party rigged system" mantra when I was a sophomore in college, which is about the time most people recognize it for what it is.

Congratulations for being so easily broken and so early that you pose no threat to the status quo for at least 2/3 to 3/4 of your life! Quite an achievement.

This post was edited on 3/21 1:41 PM by strummingram

LOL.

The fact is that if your candidate or idea isn't being adopted by the group, it isn't because of a conspiracy; it's because most people think it's a bad candidate or idea. Now, they may be wrong and you may be right. But elevating your minority status to some kind of persecuted victim of a corrupt system is just sophomoric, not to mention unproductive.

You and I agree, by the way, that mandatory voting is a bad idea. Let's not forget that. But when the supporters of mandatory voting get ignored by the rest of the world, I'll consider it a pain in the ass when they start talking about how they were screwed by the rigged system.

 

[pablow]

Isn't "not voting" protected speech. I "not vote" all the time - intentionally.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by strummingram:
If you can explain to me how it is a fool-proof guarantee that the actual CHOICES will increase and the 2-Party paradigm, focsu, and worship, will disappear, I'm all ears.

I fail to see how government, which is one of the primary beneficiaries of the whole structure, is suddenly going to give the prisoners the keys to the prison.














You tell me how you are going to get change without doing anything? There are no guarantees. You are the prisoner, you seem to like it that way. You have been institutionalized to the point that you are afraid of change. There are plenty of plans being implemented to downsize and control and target the vote. There are few if any to expand and the vote. But there are a few. The Governor of Oregon is doing just that. We need to make it easier for citizens and encourage higher voter turnouts.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-automatic-voter-registration-20150317-story.html


This post was edited on 3/21 12:20 PM by wildcatdad


This post was edited on 3/21 12:25 PM by wildcatdad

I think you need to reevaluate who you're talking to, dude.

Where did I advocate doing nothing? By resisting this mandatory vote scheme, and criticizing the 2-party, rigged system; I'm somehow "doing nothing" to you? Hey, I'm all for citizens being better-informed and made more aware of their situation. I don't think FORCING THEM is the way to go! You people that advocate for compulsory actions rarely envision the side effects, let alone the actual results that compulsory/mandatory behavior brings.

The prison/prisoner was a metaphor. Good for Oregon, by the way. I just asked for details on how this federal mandate improves the situation for the average citizens. How does it insure we get more choice?

I got tired of hearing this "third party" and "two-party rigged system" mantra when I was a sophomore in college, which is about the time most people recognize it for what it is.

Congratulations for being so easily broken and so early that you pose no threat to the status quo for at least 2/3 to 3/4 of your life! Quite an achievement.



This post was edited on 3/21 1:41 PM by strummingram

LOL.

The fact is that if your candidate or idea isn't being adopted by the group, it isn't because of a conspiracy; it's because most people think it's a bad candidate or idea. Now, they may be wrong and you may be right. But elevating your minority status to some kind of persecuted victim of a corrupt system is just sophomoric, not to mention unproductive.

You and I agree, by the way, that mandatory voting is a bad idea. Let's not forget that. But when the supporters of mandatory voting get ignored by the rest of the world, I'll consider it a pain in the ass when they start talking about how they were screwed by the rigged system.




Well LC we are doing it your way and I can read your posts and tell you are satisfied with the way things are. Congrats. You won.

Strum is unhappy with the way things are he just doesn't have any ideas to put forth.

These are ideas being put forth to try and increase voter participation. You think its a bad idea, I think its an idea worth thinking about. I like what Oregon is doing, but I do not expect Kansas do change anything, Kansans are not what you call innovative. I sit and listen to them complain about not being able to Control everything. Kind of funny really. Some of them figure if you have gun that's all you really need.

This post was edited on 3/21 2:23 PM by wildcatdad

 

[strummingram]

I have plenty of ideas. One idea is that the ballots have a list of pivotal issues and you vote based on a multiple choice of solutions. You choose based on your preferences toward issues, not names of people.

Example:

Do you think illegal immigrants should be removed from the country by force immediately?

1)strongly agree
2)strongly disagree
3)neutral


And after you submit your answers to all the issues, you are shown who your ideal candidate is and your vote goes toward that person. There is no party affiliation.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by strummingram:
If you can explain to me how it is a fool-proof guarantee that the actual CHOICES will increase and the 2-Party paradigm, focsu, and worship, will disappear, I'm all ears.

I fail to see how government, which is one of the primary beneficiaries of the whole structure, is suddenly going to give the prisoners the keys to the prison.














You tell me how you are going to get change without doing anything? There are no guarantees. You are the prisoner, you seem to like it that way. You have been institutionalized to the point that you are afraid of change. There are plenty of plans being implemented to downsize and control and target the vote. There are few if any to expand and the vote. But there are a few. The Governor of Oregon is doing just that. We need to make it easier for citizens and encourage higher voter turnouts.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-automatic-voter-registration-20150317-story.html

This post was edited on 3/21 12:20 PM by wildcatdad

This post was edited on 3/21 12:25 PM by wildcatdad

I think you need to reevaluate who you're talking to, dude.

Where did I advocate doing nothing? By resisting this mandatory vote scheme, and criticizing the 2-party, rigged system; I'm somehow "doing nothing" to you? Hey, I'm all for citizens being better-informed and made more aware of their situation. I don't think FORCING THEM is the way to go! You people that advocate for compulsory actions rarely envision the side effects, let alone the actual results that compulsory/mandatory behavior brings.

The prison/prisoner was a metaphor. Good for Oregon, by the way. I just asked for details on how this federal mandate improves the situation for the average citizens. How does it insure we get more choice?

I got tired of hearing this "third party" and "two-party rigged system" mantra when I was a sophomore in college, which is about the time most people recognize it for what it is.

Congratulations for being so easily broken and so early that you pose no threat to the status quo for at least 2/3 to 3/4 of your life! Quite an achievement.



This post was edited on 3/21 1:41 PM by strummingram

LOL.

The fact is that if your candidate or idea isn't being adopted by the group, it isn't because of a conspiracy; it's because most people think it's a bad candidate or idea. Now, they may be wrong and you may be right. But elevating your minority status to some kind of persecuted victim of a corrupt system is just sophomoric, not to mention unproductive.

You and I agree, by the way, that mandatory voting is a bad idea. Let's not forget that. But when the supporters of mandatory voting get ignored by the rest of the world, I'll consider it a pain in the ass when they start talking about how they were screwed by the rigged system.




Well LC we are doing it your way and I can read your posts and tell you are satisfied with the way things are. Congrats. You won.

Strum is unhappy with the way things are he just doesn't have any ideas to put forth.

These are ideas being put forth to try and increase voter participation. You think its a bad idea, I think its an idea worth thinking about. I like what Oregon is doing, but I do not expect Kansas do change anything, Kansans are not what you call innovative. I sit and listen to them complain about not being able to Control everything. Kind of funny really. Some of them figure if you have gun that's all you really need.

This post was edited on 3/21 2:23 PM by wildcatdad

I have never had anybody explain to me why it is a good thing for society to encourage people who have no interest or knowledge about the issues to pick the people who will be deciding the issues.

I have gone around and around with goo-goos (a nickname for self-described "good government" types like the League of Women Voters) over the years on this subject. They think a turnout of 110% is wonderful. They can't explain why it is a good thing to have someone choose our leaders who doesn't know the names of the candidates, let alone their positions. The reason they can't expain it is that it is NOT a good idea. It's a really stupid, really bad idea. It's GIGO on a political scale.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by strummingram:
I have plenty of ideas. One idea is that the ballots have a list of pivotal issues and you vote based on a multiple choice of solutions. You choose based on your preferences toward issues, not names of people.

Example:

Do you think illegal immigrants should be removed from the country by force immediately?

1)strongly agree
2)strongly disagree
3)neutral


And after you submit your answers to all the issues, you are shown who your ideal candidate is and your vote goes toward that person. There is no party affiliation.

OK Strum, now who is championing your idea and bringing it to the public square or putting it into legislative form? The President has endorsed one form of voter inclusion and an Oregon Governor signed legislation for another. Where is yours? A message board is not going to get it done.

 

[wildcatdad]

LC if the League Of Women Voters cannot even get their foot in the door as a legitimate voice for voter rights then I highly doubt anyone on a message board will convince you of much of anything. You have so much wax in your ears that you could not hear a freight train. Cons are like that a lot.

I have never heard a good case for making it as difficult as possible for people to vote, except that they may not vote the way you direct them.
This post was edited on 3/21 5:42 PM by wildcatdad

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

LC if the League Of Women Voters cannot even get their foot in the door as a legitimate voice for voter rights then I highly doubt anyone on a message board will convince you of much of anything. You have so much wax in your ears that you could not hear a freight train. Cons are like that a lot.

I have never heard a good case for making it as difficult as possible for people to vote, except that they may not vote the way you direct them.
This post was edited on 3/21 5:42 PM by wildcatdad

Well, since I was married for several years to the president of the Cedar Rapids-Marion LWV, you probably don't know even half as much about the subject as I do. But don't let that slow you down.

 

[iavagabond]

Originally posted by iowalawhawk:
I don't want people voting who don't know the issues and don't care.

In fact, I would imagine that those voters are even more easily persuaded by campaigning and advertising, which would lead to even more money spent on elections, not less like Obama says.

But there ARE people who want those who don't have a clue and don't really care voting as long as they can influence/manipulate their vote through the media, Hollywood and social media.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

LC if the League Of Women Voters cannot even get their foot in the door as a legitimate voice for voter rights then I highly doubt anyone on a message board will convince you of much of anything. You have so much wax in your ears that you could not hear a freight train. Cons are like that a lot.

I have never heard a good case for making it as difficult as possible for people to vote, except that they may not vote the way you direct them.

This post was edited on 3/21 5:42 PM by wildcatdad

Well, since I was married for several years to the president of the Cedar Rapids-Marion LWV, you probably don't know even half as much about the subject as I do. But don't let that slow you down.




No one knows half as much as you do LC. All they have to do is ask you.

 

[Nat Algren]

"if God intended us to vote, he'd have given us candidates!"

But Stalin - another champion of mandatory voting - reminded us of the fraudulent nature of democratic voting when he observed: "it isn't who VOTES that counts, but who counts the votes."

Emma Goldman got to the essence of the democracy fraud when she declared: "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
"if God intended us to vote, he'd have given us candidates!"

But Stalin - another champion of mandatory voting - reminded us of the fraudulent nature of democratic voting when he observed: "it isn't who VOTES that counts, but who counts the votes."

Emma Goldman got to the essence of the democracy fraud when she declared: "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."




Hey who can argue with Stalin, and come out alive. Looks like you and LC have found your leader. I think Bibi is an admirer of Stalin and Putin so I kind of understand you guys.

However, and don't take this personally, but I think I will pass on the Stalin wisdom; and stick with Locke and the other western political reformers our founders based their beliefs.

You can have Emma too. I am not an anarchist, not even close.

This post was edited on 3/21 10:37 PM by wildcatdad

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
"if God intended us to vote, he'd have given us candidates!"

But Stalin - another champion of mandatory voting - reminded us of the fraudulent nature of democratic voting when he observed: "it isn't who VOTES that counts, but who counts the votes."

Emma Goldman got to the essence of the democracy fraud when she declared: "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."




Hey who can argue with Stalin, and come out alive. Looks like you and LC have found your leader. I think Bibi is an admirer of Stalin and Putin so I kind of understand you guys.

However, and don't take this personally, but I think I will pass on the Stalin wisdom; and stick with Locke and the other western political reformers our founders based their beliefs.

You can have Emma too. I am not an anarchist, not even close.

This post was edited on 3/21 10:37 PM by wildcatdad

Nat is TRYING to emphasize how mandatory voting isn't changing or improving anything for the voter.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
"if God intended us to vote, he'd have given us candidates!"

But Stalin - another champion of mandatory voting - reminded us of the fraudulent nature of democratic voting when he observed: "it isn't who VOTES that counts, but who counts the votes."

Emma Goldman got to the essence of the democracy fraud when she declared: "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."






Hey who can argue with Stalin, and come out alive. Looks like you and LC have found your leader. I think Bibi is an admirer of Stalin and Putin so I kind of understand you guys.

However, and don't take this personally, but I think I will pass on the Stalin wisdom; and stick with Locke and the other western political reformers our founders based their beliefs.

You can have Emma too. I am not an anarchist, not even close.

This post was edited on 3/21 10:37 PM by wildcatdad

Nat is TRYING to emphasize how mandatory voting isn't changing or improving anything for the voter.


For some reason Stalin wisdom has never impressed me. But Stalinism seems to work well in Texas.

 

[Nat Algren]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
"if God intended us to vote, he'd have given us candidates!"

But Stalin - another champion of mandatory voting - reminded us of the fraudulent nature of democratic voting when he observed: "it isn't who VOTES that counts, but who counts the votes."

Emma Goldman got to the essence of the democracy fraud when she declared: "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."




Hey who can argue with Stalin, and come out alive. Looks like you and LC have found your leader. I think Bibi is an admirer of Stalin and Putin so I kind of understand you guys.

However, and don't take this personally, but I think I will pass on the Stalin wisdom; and stick with Locke and the other western political reformers our founders based their beliefs.

You can have Emma too. I am not an anarchist, not even close.

This post was edited on 3/21 10:37 PM by wildcatdad

Nat is TRYING to emphasize how mandatory voting isn't changing or improving anything for the voter.

Thank you, SR. Wise as always.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by Nat Algren:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
"if God intended us to vote, he'd have given us candidates!"

But Stalin - another champion of mandatory voting - reminded us of the fraudulent nature of democratic voting when he observed: "it isn't who VOTES that counts, but who counts the votes."

Emma Goldman got to the essence of the democracy fraud when she declared: "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."






Hey who can argue with Stalin, and come out alive. Looks like you and LC have found your leader. I think Bibi is an admirer of Stalin and Putin so I kind of understand you guys.

However, and don't take this personally, but I think I will pass on the Stalin wisdom; and stick with Locke and the other western political reformers our founders based their beliefs.

You can have Emma too. I am not an anarchist, not even close.

This post was edited on 3/21 10:37 PM by wildcatdad

Nat is TRYING to emphasize how mandatory voting isn't changing or improving anything for the voter.

Thank you, SR. Wise as always.




Wise but irrelevant.

 

[Nat Algren]

How so?

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
How so?

It's irrelevant to him because I don't have some bought-off politician pimping my "idea." He's going to do what those people offer. Yet, he will insist he's "doing something" by eating the sh*t sandwiches and washing it down with the turdy punch that politicians and bought-off government offers.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
How so?

It's irrelevant to him because I don't have some bought-off politician pimping my "idea." He's going to do what those people offer. Yet, he will insist he's "doing something" by eating the sh*t sandwiches and washing it down with the turdy punch that politicians and bought-off government offers.

Did you leave anything out Strum? For a guy who trys to preach independence, you seem to be taking a strong stand on this political issue which is consistent with the Republican Party. Who bought you off?

If the Republican playbook is consistent with Stalinism, the pretty much supports what I believe about the Republican Party.

This post was edited on 3/22 1:32 PM by wildcatdad

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
How so?


I tend to believe it would be better if more people were involved in our political process. Its just the way it is.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
How so?

It's irrelevant to him because I don't have some bought-off politician pimping my "idea." He's going to do what those people offer. Yet, he will insist he's "doing something" by eating the sh*t sandwiches and washing it down with the turdy punch that politicians and bought-off government offers.

Did you leave anything out Strum? For a guy who trys to preach independence, you seem to be taking a strong stand on this political issue which is consistent with the Republican Party. Who bought you off?

If the Republican playbook is consistent with Stalinism, the pretty much supports what I believe about the Republican Party.

This post was edited on 3/22 1:32 PM by wildcatdad

That's exactly how partisan-minded people think... like you. I'm not "siding the Republican Party" here. I simply see mandatory voting as a mistake. I don't care if Republicans like it or dislike it. I don't care what Democrats think. Personally, I don't recognize people by such labels, myself included.

You're literally conditioned, to your core, to react and respond in a partisan sense. You only see left vs. right, republican vs. democrat. There's no real difference and that's exactly why mandatory voting won't make a difference. It will only work to instill the illusion of choice rather than the reality of choice. You never explained how mandatory voting will guarantee more choices on ballots. It won't. It will only have TWO! And, those TWO will be the same two that are already owned and operated by big corps and wealth. You'll eliminate even the names of 3rd party options on ballots.