Browsing this Thread:
5 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Winner NOT take all? That's un-American! I get the idea now, but what a logistical nightmare. So you'd have the GOP senatorial votes from NJ being assigned to some red state Senator. Roll call would need a computer since some prominent senator who attracts lots of proxies might actually wield the voting power of 5 or 10 senators. Frankly, we'd be better off going parliamentary like the rest of the democratic world. Neither is likely. One reason I like instant runoff is it's actually feasible without major structural changes to our democracy.
Posted on: 2012/7/28 21:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Sorry I didn't explain the idea very well. The principle is to give representation in every elected body, to everyone that votes, where feasible. I'm not proposing "ranking voting", changing selection process nor changing the number of elected officials. I'm proposing more of a one voter = one vote on every government resolution. Giving every single voter a direct vote on every resolution would be logistically impossible, plus most voters don't have enough time, info nor motivation. That's where the "proxy" idea borrowed from corporation shareholder proxies comes in. Councilmen/women, members of Congress wouldn't have a single vote, but would have a voting block=the number of voters they represent as proxies. The number of voters they represent would be equal to the number of votes they received, plus any votes reassigned to them by losing candidates. Votes could be reassigned to any elected official sitting in the same elected body. Government votes would move from a simple delegate headcount tally, to a tally of the number of voters that the delegate represents. Changes in state and federal laws would be needed to enact such a change. Plus there are obvious issues to resolve: how to manage horse-trading in vote reassignments, elections for unique positions such as for councilor-at-large, more complex vote tallying on resolutions, determining house majorities, hanging chads, Senate elections, etc. The big plus is to be able to tell every voter, that your vote counts and you will be represented in every elected body. It's a pretty compelling reason to vote.
Posted on: 2012/7/28 20:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'm not quite getting it. If say, a council member got 60% of the votes in his ward, and gets to vote 60% of the votes he wold have if he had 100%, don't the 40% now have no representation at all, rather than be represented by someone they didn't prefer? Your last suggestion might be "instant runoff" or "ranked Voting", where you vote for as many candidates as you like in order of preference, and they throw out the lowest and all his votes go to next one on the voter's list. I love this idea, but Steve Fulop told me that it would require a change of state law for JC to institute it, as several US cities have like Oakland & the Twin Cities. Quote:
You got that right. A huge portion of our taxes got to "Authorities" that do not make their info available. Want to know if the Parking Authority is still losing money on writing tickets? Good luck with that. Every one of these PUBLIC entities should have their budgets on their webpages. And not in an unpenetrable form. I once looked at the schools budget, the "simple version", to try and determine how much was actually spent on special ed. It was impossible, as there were too many poorly described and overlapping expenses.
Posted on: 2012/7/28 17:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Voter apathy and turnout is driven by a lot of factors, but 2 of the biggest are: voters don't feel their vote counts, and not clearly understanding how government directly impacts them.
I think that the existing process is designed to distance the voters from the day-to-day votes in government. In the elections, people who vote for losing candidates effectively lose their representation for 4 years. For those candidates that get elected, they only have any real say on the big issues if they are part of the majority party. To be honest, I'd like to see the various elections move to more proxy-based system. An elected official is simply a proxy for the voter. Shareholders in public companies don't lose their proxy just because the proxy failed to receive enough votes/shareholders. I get the fact that we need to limit the number of senators and members of congress. But why can't the houses and councils have votes based on the number of voters the elected official represents? Why can't candidates that fail to get elected, assign their vote counts to another elected official? Better government reporting and accounting should also be an issue. I'd like to know, simply and clearly, how my taxes are being spent, where, who benefits and how much it costs me. There should be standard reporting on each bill and a yearly ongoing cost/benefit statement. Of course none of this is likely to happen absent some real crisis. After all, pols were elected under the existing rules, and changes would hurt a lot of them.
Posted on: 2012/7/28 15:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Or, none of the above. :) I've decided that voting is not a good use of my time. Again, calling me narcissistic because I don't hold YOUR opinion is ironic indeed.
Posted on: 2012/7/28 5:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So... Could you please check if I understand this correctly: It is normal to want to impose one's views on the others. And, if I do not think that everybody must be forced to live like I think is right, - it is a pathology, and I am being narcissistic. Right?
Posted on: 2012/7/28 4:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What a pile of blather, this about the only thing you said that's worth responding to. You claim you're NOT ignorant of politics, yet find you have better things to do for the few minutes a year, or even every 4 years like many, to actually vote & participate in democracy. But you're not a narcissist, immature or even just lazy. Rationalize much?
Posted on: 2012/7/28 3:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I exclude the concerns of others? Ha, you might want to careful there. You don't really know who you're speaking to. :) This would be a good meme: "CALLS ME A NARCISSIST SAYS I'M NARCSISSTIC FOR NOT HAVING THE SAME OPINION AS HIM." So ironic. Quote:
Well, if your litmus test of whether a person cares about others is pulling a level, then fine. But if you don't adhere to that policy, then you have to dig a little deeper. Quote:
Quote: Because that's the word in our language? Why be so belligerent in your ignorance of politics? I'm ignorant of politics? That's a good one. Why, because you said so? Quote:
If you said you were involved with football, I would ask in what capacity - fan, athlete, coach, business partner, etc. Being involved simply means you are connected to something in some way. If you vote, you're involved in politics.
Posted on: 2012/7/28 2:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:
Narcissism is self involvement to the exclusion of concerns about anyone else. Abdicating any responsibility to participate in the governing of our society qualifies as that, IMO. Often people that aren't actually pathological will grow out of it as they mature and come to realize how the world works. But since 33% of American adults failed to vote in the last presidential election, clearly many do not. Quote:
Because that's the word in our language? Why be so belligerent in your ignorance of politics? "Involved" in reference to politics means being active, actually doing something, whether it's campaigning for someone, being a journalist or blogger, fundraiser, or actually running for office. If you "follow" football, it doesn't mean you're on the field. If I said I was "involved" with football, wouldn't you assume I worked in the industry rather than simply being a couch potato?
Posted on: 2012/7/27 15:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
How is it narcissism? I'm making decisions in order to get the most out of my life just like you and everyone else here. Quote:
So if I don't have the same interest in politics as you, I'm immature? How is it a maturity issue? Quote:
Following is still being involved. Any reasons why you're hesitant to say you're involved?
Posted on: 2012/7/27 2:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes, YES!!! And those Republicans even never tell us what those IDs are, - so nobody knows what they are, or where to get them! THAT is how those devious Republican keep the people from the polls! All we know, - it is some particular form. It has photo. Rumor has it, you need one of those IDs to buy beer, or cigarettes, or to drive a car... I once told those damned Republicans that I want an ID of my own, -- and they told me that when I am 16, they will help me get an ID, but it's like 6 more years!!!! And I cried, but the Republicans laughed and told me "good night, son..." and tucked me in. And I cried. Quote: We should be doing just the opposite. In fact, we should be doing whatever we can to increase voter turnout on Election Day. The easiest way to do that would be to require all citizens to vote under penalty of paying a small, perhaps $3, fine for failing to vote, as is done in Australia, Brazil, Singapore, Uruguay, and several other democracies. Yeah, sure, because we, freedom loving liberals, must force people to vote. Must force. Must force... it's like an urge that is so hard to suppress! I mean, - who among us doesn't wake up in the middle of the night, thinking, - some people still do not do what I think they must! I need to force them!!!
Posted on: 2012/7/26 2:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The Democrats who voted for Nader tended to be more liberal than the average Democrat, and thus unlikely to have voted for Bush. Since Gore was not beholden to the chickenhawk Neo-Cons it's unlikely he would have invaded Iraq, the war which incurred the most debt, and he certainly wouldn't have nominated Roberts or Alito. Those who say there's no difference between the major parties need look no further than their Supreme Court nominees.
Posted on: 2012/7/25 15:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Please. Can we put that Nader argument to rest? Maybe you should ask yourself why millions of democrats voted for Bush. But right, it was Nader's fault. Besides, there is no evidence that Gore would not have pursued those same policies, as Obama seems to be doing. But keep telling yourself it was Nader.
Posted on: 2012/7/25 14:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Ah, the sweet tender voice of narcissism in it's most pure and honest form! Thank you for your candor. Enjoy, maybe someday you'll grow up. As the saying goes, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested, and a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Perhaps eventually you'll experience either and find yourself awoken from your slumber. Till then, I'm glad you don't vote. BTW, I "follow" politics, I'm not "involved", which would imply doing more than simply reading a newspaper and actually voting. I too have a life that absorbs my time, but I consider voting a duty, and privilege that people have died for both here and around the world.
Posted on: 2012/7/25 3:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
If being involved in politics works for you, great. Based on my own interests and preferences, I've determined that I can improve my life more efficiently by focusing on things other than politics.
Posted on: 2012/7/25 1:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I guess you're in your 20's and still idealistic. You were likely too young to really be paying attention in 2000. A lot of the 97,421 Floridians who thought just like you and voted for Nader had 8 long years to kick themselves after Gore lost the state by 537 votes, and thus the election. Debt, war, and a Supreme Court teetering into a right wing abyss could have been avoided with a little more realpolitik and a little less idealism. I don't need a quiz to know my political leanings, but I'm sure you're correct there are many who don't even know what party stands for their beliefs. They're likely the same poor working class fools the GOP gets to vote against their own interests election after election. (see "Joe the Plumber")
Posted on: 2012/7/25 0:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I see what you're saying, I don't disagree. All I can really do is vote for the candidate I like the most, and not participate in "strategic voting"...and hope things change someday. Anyway, this is a pretty cool quiz that has been floating around the internet. You answer questions and it tells you which candidate you side with the most. I think a lot of people are surprised at the outcome. http://www.isidewith.com/
Posted on: 2012/7/25 0:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The problem is the big hill of negative outcome to climb before there's any positive outcome. Generally, voting for a 3rd party candidate get the major party candidate you actually like the least elected. GOP voters who strayed to Perot in 92 got Clinton elected, as Dems who voted for Nader got GWB elected. So you've got to get all the way to "win" before you stop hurting yourself. There's well documented cases of parties secretly supporting a 3rd party aligned with their opposite ideology to split the vote in this way. We've got a system set up to slam 3rd parties, unlike most democracies that are parliamentary so even a small party can get a few seats and build power incrementally. Pretending it ain't so is unproductive, we've got extremely few 3rd party elected officials ANYWHERE, never mind in the top federal jobs. And most of those ever in congress or a governorship were incumbents who abandoned their major party. The fight should be to reform the system, not to play into the hands of the major parties by tilting at windmills and splitting the vote.
Posted on: 2012/7/24 15:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Voting 3rd party is only "throwing your vote away" because you believe it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe if people stopped voting based on fear and tribalism and actually voted on the issues we would have a good president instead of the "lesser of two evils." I have never voted for one of the two "old" parties. I've only voted twice before (I'm in my twenties) but both times I've gone 3rd party because I really believe in those candidates. I could care less about the GOP or the Dems and I know a lot of people feel the same way. Maybe the two-party stranglehold will end one day...
Posted on: 2012/7/24 12:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Have you been watching The Newsroom? The fictional news show did a piece showing how all the hysteria generated by the NRA and right media about Obama taking away their guns was complete hogwash, that according to the Brady Campaign his record on supporting gun control was dismal. It kinda leaves open the question: If leaving them alone still gets him crucified, why not actually act against them as you say and at least get credit by the other side? But he won't, the NRA is just too scary and skilled at manipulating their audience. You might think it couldn't get worse, but I bet it could.
Posted on: 2012/7/23 18:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
 |
Quote:
+2 If the president had a spine, he'd choose this issue and this moment to draw the line and differentiate himself by demanding sensible gun laws. It couldn't have been packaged and handed to him more neatly. - People's antipathy toward special interests, PACs and the like is at a demonstrable all-time high. There are few more powerful special interest PACs than the NRA. - Congress has been fighting him since his second week in office and some members of his own party have begun moving away from him. He'd be providing an issue that could provide cover to those who choose to rejoin him. Those who don't probably aren't with him to begin with. - He'd have an opportunity to make this election about something else. It's only a little over three months to the election. He couldn't run on this for the long term, but in a sprint, it could get traction. And in doing so, he could use the NRA as a proxy for all of the big-monied interests, which he is able to do because.... - Far fewer of the big-monied interests are with him this time compared to last. - Best of all for the president, Romney couldn't follow. Even with Romney's history of vacillation and reinterpreted history, you can't get elected hall monitor as a Republican if you even harbor thoughts that could be viewed as negative by the NRA. Too bad in the real world none of this matters.
Posted on: 2012/7/23 18:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What I assume is that everyone can deduce the candidate least bad by their standards. This is what I must do in nearly every election. There's rarely any candidate who's 100% in line with one's beliefs (or has a 100% clean record). But sitting out the process because there isn't is just unrealistic at best, and infantile when you get down to it. What an instant runoff system eliminates is having to factor in who's actually electable in addition to who you'd like to support. I actually supported Hillary vs Obama not because I really thought she'd be a better president, but because my low opinion of the electorate made me think he was less electable. Obviously I was wrong, though an instant runoff would have made no difference by the time of the NJ primary since it was down to those 2. But it might have made a difference earlier.
Posted on: 2012/7/22 23:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You've made the incorrect citizen that every person can find a candidate that serves their interest.
Posted on: 2012/7/22 19:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Or develop a system for national referendums as an alternative to single or narrow issue parties like a Marajuana Party.
The Swiss have a referendum system that has addressed issues like foreign policy, suffrage, housing, etc. I think they just had a referendum on referendums.
Posted on: 2012/7/22 17:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Maybe so. But it still leaves open the question why our citizens are so apathetic and disengaged as to not feel they need to vote. People all over eastern Europe and the Middle east are thrilled to be able to cast votes that matter, after decades of being muted. Are our people too happy? Too cynical? Too lazy? I've heard most often "both parties are the same, my vote doesn't matter". I disagree, but understand it's origin. Rather than making voting mandatory I'd change our voting system to get people engaged in issues they care about. Right now voting for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away. But if we had some kind of "instant runoff" system, you could vote for any party you wanted 1st, and your lesser choices after. One might vote in order: Green Party Marijuana Party Pirate Party Democratic Party You can express support for minority parties and still cast a vote for the majority party you feel is "least bad". Under this system minor parties can build and document support, and eventually win elections.
Posted on: 2012/7/22 16:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Voting should not be mandatory. That goes against what it means to live in a free society.
Posted on: 2012/7/22 14:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
+1 It's an old theme but ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES ! Those folks who chose not to vote for Al Gore saddled us with George Bush. Bush led us into an unnecessary/unpaid for war that killed/disabled many Americans and who also led us into the financial crisis. And of course, Healy & Co. 
Posted on: 2012/7/22 4:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You must be trolling because you can't seriously be this dim. But, OK. I'll play. No, voting does not prevent politicians from acting against your interest. But by voting, you've at least made an effort to elect a politician more likely to act in your interest. If everyone does this, we're get politicians that represent, and act in the interest of, everyone, rather than just the citizens who bothered to leave their video screens for 15 minutes to vote. Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Paragraph 2 of the US Declaration of Independence, surely you've heard of it? The last line quoted means that to get good government we need to vote, give consent, to those who govern us. Not participating in this is being an infant, willing and expecting other people to act for your well being. Guess what? They don't always. The relatives of all those poor people in Denver may be rethinking their votes for politicians in the pocket of the NRA.
Posted on: 2012/7/22 3:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So if I vote, then people can't make decisions that could change my life? Come on.
Posted on: 2012/7/21 3:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Voting should be mandatory
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I guess I thought "idiot" is not as un-PC as "retard". It's clinical meaning is long in the past. But fair nuff. What's your preferred adjective to describe not someone's actual intelligence or education, but their lack of it's use? "Fool"? I've always said calling someone who's ignorant "stupid" is like calling a car with an empty tank "slow". both may well be, but you'll never know till you put something in there. But sadly, there are informed & educated people who still won't bother to participate in the civil process. They're included in the group I called "idiots".
Posted on: 2012/7/19 16:27
|
|||
|
||||