He won. The “West Wing” scenario played out exactly as–
Uh oh.
Has anyone checked on Joe Biden?
PAD
456 comments on “I’ll be darned”
“Wouldn’t a “None of the above” category be lovely? Vote “No Confidence” in both candidates and send the parties back to find someone better?”
We actually have that on many ballots via the “write-in” option.
“Just because some people ignore or abuse traffic laws doesn’t mean you should repeal the traffic laws.”
But traffic laws are a different animal. I can show you quantifiable evidence that people refusing to stop for a red light or doing 75 in a school zone when the busses are leaving the school parking lot costs lives. The only thing that a pro-compulsory voting group in America could show is that there maybe might have been a different outcome to the 2000 election that might possibly have kept some bad things from happening over the last 8 years maybe.
“There also seems to be a vibe here that those who don’t vote are sometimes too dumb to be voting anyway… That’s vaguely worrying, because it’s back to the ‘some are more equal than others’ argument from a previous thread.”
No, it’s not that some are too dumb, it’s that some just don’t care. They think that it will never matter who gets voted into office and they just don’t care. I actually know people who are otherwise very smart people, but they think that people that vote are stupid for wasting their time with a fixed or pointless process.
“Personally, I think people should vote, and should be encouraged to do so both by positive social attitudes – voting should be like jury service, it’s a civic responsibility and you’re a hero for democracy if you do and a bad, bad person if you don’t – and by negative penalty of getting fined if you don’t. I’m not saying that makes for a perfect system, I do think that it makes for a better one if you look at the overall numbers. “
The same could be said for compulsory military service, but that’s not a very popular idea with many either. The same could be said, on an extreme end, for mandating health standards in America. Believe it or not that idea to varying degrees of scale and scope has been floated by some in the halls of power. They can even make a very powerful and positive sounding argument for it as well.
“If ballots were also changed to include a “None of the Above” option, would that change your opinion of making voting compulsory? I think both you and Megan are awfully intelligent posters ’round these parts, and I’d like to find some way to bridge the gap.”
I’m really not sure that there’s that much of a gap. From what’s been said I think that Megan and I both, barring the occasional local election where I’ve gotten to fed up to vote for either of my crappy options, have the same basic personal views on the need to vote. We simply part ways at agreeing on whether or not the idea of legal mandated voting in America would be a good idea or not.
Plus I think that she thought, based on my not specifying clearly enough in my posts that I was only talking about what I thought would be the drawbacks of implementing this in America at this stage of the game, that I was broad brushing an opinion at every country that does it (like Australia) and every country’s people that participate in that system.
Besides, like I said above, it may really be a moot point. the more I think about it and discuss it, the more I’m sure that the ACLU would challenge it and that the SCOTUS would strike any such law down as unconstitutional. I think that a case could be made very easily that compulsory voting was an abridgement of the rights and liberties guaranteed in by the Constitution and that the challenge would win fairly quickly.
“Wouldn’t a “None of the above” category be lovely? Vote “No Confidence” in both candidates and send the parties back to find someone better?”
We actually have that on many ballots via the “write-in” option.
“Just because some people ignore or abuse traffic laws doesn’t mean you should repeal the traffic laws.”
But traffic laws are a different animal. I can show you quantifiable evidence that people refusing to stop for a red light or doing 75 in a school zone when the busses are leaving the school parking lot costs lives. The only thing that a pro-compulsory voting group in America could show is that there maybe might have been a different outcome to the 2000 election that might possibly have kept some bad things from happening over the last 8 years maybe.
“There also seems to be a vibe here that those who don’t vote are sometimes too dumb to be voting anyway… That’s vaguely worrying, because it’s back to the ‘some are more equal than others’ argument from a previous thread.”
No, it’s not that some are too dumb, it’s that some just don’t care. They think that it will never matter who gets voted into office and they just don’t care. I actually know people who are otherwise very smart people, but they think that people that vote are stupid for wasting their time with a fixed or pointless process.
“Personally, I think people should vote, and should be encouraged to do so both by positive social attitudes – voting should be like jury service, it’s a civic responsibility and you’re a hero for democracy if you do and a bad, bad person if you don’t – and by negative penalty of getting fined if you don’t. I’m not saying that makes for a perfect system, I do think that it makes for a better one if you look at the overall numbers. “
The same could be said for compulsory military service, but that’s not a very popular idea with many either. The same could be said, on an extreme end, for mandating health standards in America. Believe it or not that idea to varying degrees of scale and scope has been floated by some in the halls of power. They can even make a very powerful and positive sounding argument for it as well.
“If ballots were also changed to include a “None of the Above” option, would that change your opinion of making voting compulsory? I think both you and Megan are awfully intelligent posters ’round these parts, and I’d like to find some way to bridge the gap.”
I’m really not sure that there’s that much of a gap. From what’s been said I think that Megan and I both, barring the occasional local election where I’ve gotten to fed up to vote for either of my crappy options, have the same basic personal views on the need to vote. We simply part ways at agreeing on whether or not the idea of legal mandated voting in America would be a good idea or not.
Plus I think that she thought, based on my not specifying clearly enough in my posts that I was only talking about what I thought would be the drawbacks of implementing this in America at this stage of the game, that I was broad brushing an opinion at every country that does it (like Australia) and every country’s people that participate in that system.
Besides, like I said above, it may really be a moot point. the more I think about it and discuss it, the more I’m sure that the ACLU would challenge it and that the SCOTUS would strike any such law down as unconstitutional. I think that a case could be made very easily that compulsory voting was an abridgement of the rights and liberties guaranteed in by the Constitution and that the challenge would win fairly quickly.
Posted by Rene at November 8, 2008 10:06 AM
Peter –
“People are not equal. People should have the same rights, yes. But they’re not equal. I don’t think all of the no-shows are too dumb to vote. Some are too cynical, some just don’t feel strongly about any issues.
In the end, it boils down to: How can they be prepared to vote when they can’t even be bothered to spend the mininal effort required to vote?”
Maybe some of them would get prepared if they HAD to vote…?
People can change. (Perhaps not often, or easily, but the alternative is to write them off forever)
I can see where you’re coming from, and you do make some valid points, but I’d like to think some people just need some encouragement to start taking an active part in their own futures.
Cheers.
Posted by Rene at November 8, 2008 10:06 AM
Peter –
“People are not equal. People should have the same rights, yes. But they’re not equal. I don’t think all of the no-shows are too dumb to vote. Some are too cynical, some just don’t feel strongly about any issues.
In the end, it boils down to: How can they be prepared to vote when they can’t even be bothered to spend the mininal effort required to vote?”
Maybe some of them would get prepared if they HAD to vote…?
People can change. (Perhaps not often, or easily, but the alternative is to write them off forever)
I can see where you’re coming from, and you do make some valid points, but I’d like to think some people just need some encouragement to start taking an active part in their own futures.
Cheers.
Jerry, you’re kind of making the point for me here:
“But traffic laws are a different animal. I can show you quantifiable evidence that people refusing to stop for a red light or doing 75 in a school zone when the busses are leaving the school parking lot costs lives. The only thing that a pro-compulsory voting group in America could show is that there maybe might have been a different outcome to the 2000 election that might possibly have kept some bad things from happening over the last 8 years maybe.”
Leave aside the argument that even a “maybe” option to save lives lost over the last eight years might be a good thing, and you’re still citing an example of people disobeying the law for a reason to not have the law… How many people DO stop at red lights or stay within the speed limits in school districts?
I’m not convinced that the ones who wouldn’t vote would outweigh the ones who would…
“No, it’s not that some are too dumb, it’s that some just don’t care. They think that it will never matter who gets voted into office and they just don’t care. I actually know people who are otherwise very smart people, but they think that people that vote are stupid for wasting their time with a fixed or pointless process.”
Call me judgemental, but that sure sounds dumb to me 🙂 But if they feel that, let ’em turn up and put NotA on the ballot. Or pay the fine. Or kick up enough of a stink that if it is a “fixed or pointless process” it gets exposed and corrected.
As per previous to Rene, you do make some valid points, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I’ll stick with my original position.
Cheers.
Jerry, you’re kind of making the point for me here:
“But traffic laws are a different animal. I can show you quantifiable evidence that people refusing to stop for a red light or doing 75 in a school zone when the busses are leaving the school parking lot costs lives. The only thing that a pro-compulsory voting group in America could show is that there maybe might have been a different outcome to the 2000 election that might possibly have kept some bad things from happening over the last 8 years maybe.”
Leave aside the argument that even a “maybe” option to save lives lost over the last eight years might be a good thing, and you’re still citing an example of people disobeying the law for a reason to not have the law… How many people DO stop at red lights or stay within the speed limits in school districts?
I’m not convinced that the ones who wouldn’t vote would outweigh the ones who would…
“No, it’s not that some are too dumb, it’s that some just don’t care. They think that it will never matter who gets voted into office and they just don’t care. I actually know people who are otherwise very smart people, but they think that people that vote are stupid for wasting their time with a fixed or pointless process.”
Call me judgemental, but that sure sounds dumb to me 🙂 But if they feel that, let ’em turn up and put NotA on the ballot. Or pay the fine. Or kick up enough of a stink that if it is a “fixed or pointless process” it gets exposed and corrected.
As per previous to Rene, you do make some valid points, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I’ll stick with my original position.
Cheers.
Luigi, that’s awesome news about Dynamo 5. Congratulations!
Luigi, that’s awesome news about Dynamo 5. Congratulations!
The thing is, under our constitution there are rights are are guaranteed–they are not forced. You CAN own a gun. You CAN practice your religion. You CAN speak your mind. I would no more FORCE people to vote than I would insist they own a weapon, go to church or write snippy letters to the editor.
Saying they could keep the gun unloaded, read Christopher Hitchens during the service, or write letter complaining about having to write letters wouldn’t make it more palatable.
The analogy to traffic laws isn’t quite right either–there’s no obligation to drive. If you do there are rules to follow. You don’t have to vote but if you do there are also rules–just one vote, for example. Except in Chicago.
Someone mentioned our compulsory education laws and that’s not a bad point. Even that has its limits though–you can opt out of public education, though under strict guidelines. I think it’s pretty easy to argue that the harm to society of a person not being educated is likely to be several orders of magnitude more severe than any harm from that person not voting.
I’m happy for those who live under different rules and are pleased with them. We are very unlikely to change our rules here and none of the arguments presented thus far make me think otherwise. Most other western countries, to say nothing of the rest of the world, seem ok with living under a system that does not guarantee free speech to the degree that ours does. Different strokes for different folks, I guess, it would be bugging the hëll out of me.
Look, I’m just going to agree to disagree at this point and opt out of any further round and rounds about it.
I think that it’s a bad idea, that it would be taken less than well by a large portion of the American population and that it would get killed by groups like the ACLU and the courts.
You don’t. Fine. Have a good weekend. I’m going to slink off now and get ready to have a long cry over yet another upcoming birthday moving me one year closer to geezerhood.
Look, I’m just going to agree to disagree at this point and opt out of any further round and rounds about it.
I think that it’s a bad idea, that it would be taken less than well by a large portion of the American population and that it would get killed by groups like the ACLU and the courts.
You don’t. Fine. Have a good weekend. I’m going to slink off now and get ready to have a long cry over yet another upcoming birthday moving me one year closer to geezerhood.
closer to geezerhood.
That ship has sialed, my friend. It’s sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, and James made a movie about it.
“Closer to” geezerhood. That’s funny. Good one.
Now wait a second there, Mulligan. If I remember what Jerry said in a recent post, he’s actually several months YOUNGER than I am.
And I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Geezer Party.
Now wait a second there, Mulligan. If I remember what Jerry said in a recent post, he’s actually several months YOUNGER than I am.
And I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Geezer Party.
the more I think about it and discuss it, the more I’m sure that the ACLU would challenge it and that the SCOTUS would strike any such law down as unconstitutional. I think that a case could be made very easily that compulsory voting was an abridgement of the rights and liberties guaranteed in by the Constitution and that the challenge would win fairly quickly.
The more you think about things, the more you self-servingly convince yourself the ACLU is resolved to obstruct everything, and ignore the fact they don’t oppose the mandatory filing of taxes as obstructing free speech. But of course they’ll make an exception to their practices for you and oppose mandatory voting.
Oooooooookay.
“Now wait a second there, Mulligan. If I remember what Jerry said in a recent post, he’s actually several months YOUNGER than I am.”
38 this Tuesday, you old man. But, hey, Mulligan is still about a decade older than us!
~8?)`
“Now wait a second there, Mulligan. If I remember what Jerry said in a recent post, he’s actually several months YOUNGER than I am.”
38 this Tuesday, you old man. But, hey, Mulligan is still about a decade older than us!
~8?)`
I’m way past geezerhood. I’m a wizened sage.
“I’m a wizened sage.”
So you’re saying that if we add you to dishes such as soup or beans you’ll bring out a crisp, fresh flavor?
Pass.
Then I did remember correctly — 38 this past February, you young whippersnapper you.
And how exactly does one unwizen sage?
Then I did remember correctly — 38 this past February, you young whippersnapper you.
And how exactly does one unwizen sage?
“And how exactly does one unwizen sage?”
Soak in cool water – 1tablespoon water per 1/2 teaspoon dried sage?
“And how exactly does one unwizen sage?”
Soak in cool water – 1tablespoon water per 1/2 teaspoon dried sage?
If it wasn’t way past my bedtime I’d have a snappy comeback.
What were we talking about?
If it wasn’t way past my bedtime I’d have a snappy comeback.
What were we talking about?
Has anyone checked on Joe Biden?
Joe’s fine, I’m keeping over at my house in this cardboard box. I even poked holes in his back so he could breathe..Oh boy, ok, hang on, hang on… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXHaCEhOiWU
Has anyone checked on Joe Biden?
Joe’s fine, I’m keeping over at my house in this cardboard box. I even poked holes in his back so he could breathe..Oh boy, ok, hang on, hang on… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXHaCEhOiWU
Far better than trying to institute mandatory voting in the US would be to end this electoral college thing. I don’t think mandatory voting would have changed 2000, but populat vote would.
And I think it’s dumb that there are people out there that thing one candidate is as good as another. For one, I very much doubt Al Gore would have invaded Iraq, despite the protestations of a minority of Bush supporters that still mantain that the war was “unavoidable” (fancy way of denying Bush’s responsibility).
Far better than trying to institute mandatory voting in the US would be to end this electoral college thing. I don’t think mandatory voting would have changed 2000, but populat vote would.
And I think it’s dumb that there are people out there that thing one candidate is as good as another. For one, I very much doubt Al Gore would have invaded Iraq, despite the protestations of a minority of Bush supporters that still mantain that the war was “unavoidable” (fancy way of denying Bush’s responsibility).
Bill, splitting hairs, but under compulsory voting you can choose not to vote, but it’s going to cost you $25, or $50, or whatever… The only thing it says you can’t do is ignore the fact that there was an election.
(Hmmm.. Maybe people could have an opt out agreement which means they would agree to never have a vote in any election, so avoiding any fines? That also might make people think about the value of their right to vote, which serves the same purpose)
Agreeing to disagree is always a viable option.
I don’t throw ideas out looking to convert anyone, and there doesn’t have to be a winner in every discussion.
By the way, I’m 51, so geezerhood is probably much further away than any of you think.
Cheers.
’51’
It’s not a state of mind, it’s an area!
Indeed.
Or a prelude to some sort of Crisis!!!
Cheers.
Bladestar wrote: “So Rich, if the “majority” vote to take away EVERYTHING you own, and to make you a slave, and turn your loved ones into sex slaves, that’s OK with you because the “majority” voted for it?”
“You are a fûçkìņg idiot if you actually believe that just bacause the “majority” says so, that makes it right….”
You should be ashamed of yourself for directing such a vile and repulsive personal attack towards me. You are displaying the behavior of a very despicable and hateful human being. Shame on you and I hope someday soon you will learn to behave like a civilized person.
PAD wrote:
“Sure, lots of reasons: Bias. Stupidity. Arrogance. Ignorance. Hatred. Bigotry. Take your pick.”
No thank you. I will not pick any of the choices you have provided. But the “reasons” you supplied, the majority of them do seem to describe your response against those who do not agree with you on this subject matter. I find it baffling for a group of people who supposedly champion tolerance, understanding, and open mindedness that they themselves are often the biggest hypocrites in the entire “gay marriage” discussion as they display the biggest amounts of hated, bigotry, threats of harm, and slander against those who do not agree with them on this matter. Shame on you Mr. Peter David. If you think about it, isn’t it people like you — who display such unjustified anger and personal attacks against people you don’t even know — that really hurt the “gay marriage” movement? Think about it some instead of flying off the handle with another attack response.
PAD wrote:
“Sure, lots of reasons: Bias. Stupidity. Arrogance. Ignorance. Hatred. Bigotry. Take your pick.”
No thank you. I will not pick any of the choices you have provided. But the “reasons” you supplied, the majority of them do seem to describe your response against those who do not agree with you on this subject matter. I find it baffling for a group of people who supposedly champion tolerance, understanding, and open mindedness that they themselves are often the biggest hypocrites in the entire “gay marriage” discussion as they display the biggest amounts of hated, bigotry, threats of harm, and slander against those who do not agree with them on this matter. Shame on you Mr. Peter David. If you think about it, isn’t it people like you — who display such unjustified anger and personal attacks against people you don’t even know — that really hurt the “gay marriage” movement? Think about it some instead of flying off the handle with another attack response.
They people who “dont’ agree with them on this matter” want to limit the rights of a group of people to pursue happiness by marrying the ones they fall in love with. The people who champion this right do not, and think it’s wrong to limit this right. The former is indeed indicative of bigotry, as it is they personally attacking the rights of people they do not know. The latter is not.
Didn’t you know, Luigi? Pointing out the bigotry of these religious fanatics is intolerant? Hey, we tolerate you, we just want you to shut up.
Notice Rick couldn’t come up with any counter arguments, he just whined about people picking on him. Awwww.
I submit this to all who voted FOR Prop 8 or who supported it.
Big difference between good human beungs and people like you Rich:
You want to take away people’s rights, we just say, “Live and let live”. You and your ilk are more like “very despicable and hateful human being”s than any of us who wants gays to have the same rights as everyone else.
How does gay marriage hurt you or anyone else?
You don’t have a real answer do you?
Why?
Because gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone anymore that “straight” marriage does.
Get off your high horse and grow up Rich.
You should be ashamed of yourself for directing such a vile and repulsive personal attack towards me. You are displaying the behavior of a very despicable and hateful human being
Um, you’re looking at a mirror.
I can’t think of a more despicable or hateful thing than to think that a civil right can be voted upon by a majority of people.
And you’re being an intellectual coward for making these personal attacks instead of dealing with the argument.
You should be ashamed of yourself for directing such a vile and repulsive personal attack towards me. You are displaying the behavior of a very despicable and hateful human being
Um, you’re looking at a mirror.
I can’t think of a more despicable or hateful thing than to think that a civil right can be voted upon by a majority of people.
And you’re being an intellectual coward for making these personal attacks instead of dealing with the argument.
John Scalzi said it well:
If the people voting for Proposition 8 couldn’t stand personally in front of a married couple, tell that couple they shouldn’t be married, and say that it is their right and duty to destroy that marriage, they should not vote for Proposition 8.
So, Rich, are you willing to stand in front of George Takei and say, “I want to destroy your marriage”?
OK, a number of people cited the fact that the DOJ declared there was “not a credible threat” in the assassination attempt against Obama in Denver. That actually proves my point. Did you guys read any of the specifics, or did you just read the headlines?
The guys were caught in Denver, staying at a hotel that they thought Obama was going to be staying at. They had a high powered rifle, scoped to 700+ yards. They had various other suspicious paraphenalia. They actually SAID they were going to shoot him. They had motive, a weapon, a plan (maybe not the best, but hey) … and the authorities there claim they weren’t a real threat to Obama. In a country where you can get tossed into the slammer joking about bombs in an airport, where you can get put under police surveillance for belonging to a world peace organization, where you can disappear into Guantanamo because somebody says you might be a terrorist … why are these guys not being prosecuted for an attempt on a presidential candidate’s life? Because, the DOJ says, it’s unlikely they would have gotten near enough to have completed it. Excuse me? I’ve read enough true crime books that there have been convictions for attempted murder of people who have chickened out at the last minute and gone home.
If you agree with the DOJ, feel free to take this challenge: Throw a rifle in the back of you car, soap your back window with “Goin’ to kill Bush”, and drive to Washington DC. Park in front of the White House.
I’ll see you in 20-30 years.
Rich, Bladestar, roger Tang — for God’s sake, settle down.
Rich, I’m afraid you misunderstand how our system of governance works. We are a representative democracy. That means that sovereignty rests in the hands leaders who derive their legitimacy from a popular vote.
It doesn’t mean that everything is up for a vote. Some of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. quite wisely chose to include a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution in order to protect certain basic liberties. The theory behind it is that there are certain rights that are inalienable, and should therefore not be subject to the whims of popular opinion.
Oh, and calling someone a “bigot” is not intolerant if the word is applied accurately. I think one can make a case that opposition to gay marriage meets the definition of the word “bigotry.”
Bigot: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
As an observation, those who approve of and support gay marriage are to some degree bigoted towards those who genuinely believe it to be a sin and that people of that persuasion are going to the hot place…
I subscribe to the liberal view, but I accept that is my belief, not anything I can categorically prove. And the other guy is entitled to disagree, even if I think he’s batass crazy to do so…
End of the day, we’re all digging in our heels and wailing “But I’m right and the other guy is wrong!”
Is it oxymoronic to be holier than thou when disagreeing with someone driven by religious belief?
Cheers.
The separation of Church and State is supposed to prevent šhìŧ like Prop 8.
Religion isn’t based on rational facts, it’s built on irrational faith.
The separation of Church and State is supposed to prevent šhìŧ like Prop 8.
Religion isn’t based on rational facts, it’s built on irrational faith.
Bladestar, religion and faith aren’t inherently “irrational” in my view. But I agree that matters of faith are best left to the individual and not to the state, and that people should not be able to impose their personal faith on others.
Oh, and regarding whether the First Amendment is supposed to prevent things like Prop 8, I’m inclined to agree. I think many proponents of gay marriage are hoping this issue makes it to the Supreme Court.
• 
“Wouldn’t a “None of the above” category be lovely? Vote “No Confidence” in both candidates and send the parties back to find someone better?”
We actually have that on many ballots via the “write-in” option.
“Just because some people ignore or abuse traffic laws doesn’t mean you should repeal the traffic laws.”
But traffic laws are a different animal. I can show you quantifiable evidence that people refusing to stop for a red light or doing 75 in a school zone when the busses are leaving the school parking lot costs lives. The only thing that a pro-compulsory voting group in America could show is that there maybe might have been a different outcome to the 2000 election that might possibly have kept some bad things from happening over the last 8 years maybe.
“There also seems to be a vibe here that those who don’t vote are sometimes too dumb to be voting anyway… That’s vaguely worrying, because it’s back to the ‘some are more equal than others’ argument from a previous thread.”
No, it’s not that some are too dumb, it’s that some just don’t care. They think that it will never matter who gets voted into office and they just don’t care. I actually know people who are otherwise very smart people, but they think that people that vote are stupid for wasting their time with a fixed or pointless process.
“Personally, I think people should vote, and should be encouraged to do so both by positive social attitudes – voting should be like jury service, it’s a civic responsibility and you’re a hero for democracy if you do and a bad, bad person if you don’t – and by negative penalty of getting fined if you don’t.
I’m not saying that makes for a perfect system, I do think that it makes for a better one if you look at the overall numbers. “
The same could be said for compulsory military service, but that’s not a very popular idea with many either. The same could be said, on an extreme end, for mandating health standards in America. Believe it or not that idea to varying degrees of scale and scope has been floated by some in the halls of power. They can even make a very powerful and positive sounding argument for it as well.
“If ballots were also changed to include a “None of the Above” option, would that change your opinion of making voting compulsory? I think both you and Megan are awfully intelligent posters ’round these parts, and I’d like to find some way to bridge the gap.”
I’m really not sure that there’s that much of a gap. From what’s been said I think that Megan and I both, barring the occasional local election where I’ve gotten to fed up to vote for either of my crappy options, have the same basic personal views on the need to vote. We simply part ways at agreeing on whether or not the idea of legal mandated voting in America would be a good idea or not.
Plus I think that she thought, based on my not specifying clearly enough in my posts that I was only talking about what I thought would be the drawbacks of implementing this in America at this stage of the game, that I was broad brushing an opinion at every country that does it (like Australia) and every country’s people that participate in that system.
Besides, like I said above, it may really be a moot point. the more I think about it and discuss it, the more I’m sure that the ACLU would challenge it and that the SCOTUS would strike any such law down as unconstitutional. I think that a case could be made very easily that compulsory voting was an abridgement of the rights and liberties guaranteed in by the Constitution and that the challenge would win fairly quickly.
“Wouldn’t a “None of the above” category be lovely? Vote “No Confidence” in both candidates and send the parties back to find someone better?”
We actually have that on many ballots via the “write-in” option.
“Just because some people ignore or abuse traffic laws doesn’t mean you should repeal the traffic laws.”
But traffic laws are a different animal. I can show you quantifiable evidence that people refusing to stop for a red light or doing 75 in a school zone when the busses are leaving the school parking lot costs lives. The only thing that a pro-compulsory voting group in America could show is that there maybe might have been a different outcome to the 2000 election that might possibly have kept some bad things from happening over the last 8 years maybe.
“There also seems to be a vibe here that those who don’t vote are sometimes too dumb to be voting anyway… That’s vaguely worrying, because it’s back to the ‘some are more equal than others’ argument from a previous thread.”
No, it’s not that some are too dumb, it’s that some just don’t care. They think that it will never matter who gets voted into office and they just don’t care. I actually know people who are otherwise very smart people, but they think that people that vote are stupid for wasting their time with a fixed or pointless process.
“Personally, I think people should vote, and should be encouraged to do so both by positive social attitudes – voting should be like jury service, it’s a civic responsibility and you’re a hero for democracy if you do and a bad, bad person if you don’t – and by negative penalty of getting fined if you don’t.
I’m not saying that makes for a perfect system, I do think that it makes for a better one if you look at the overall numbers. “
The same could be said for compulsory military service, but that’s not a very popular idea with many either. The same could be said, on an extreme end, for mandating health standards in America. Believe it or not that idea to varying degrees of scale and scope has been floated by some in the halls of power. They can even make a very powerful and positive sounding argument for it as well.
“If ballots were also changed to include a “None of the Above” option, would that change your opinion of making voting compulsory? I think both you and Megan are awfully intelligent posters ’round these parts, and I’d like to find some way to bridge the gap.”
I’m really not sure that there’s that much of a gap. From what’s been said I think that Megan and I both, barring the occasional local election where I’ve gotten to fed up to vote for either of my crappy options, have the same basic personal views on the need to vote. We simply part ways at agreeing on whether or not the idea of legal mandated voting in America would be a good idea or not.
Plus I think that she thought, based on my not specifying clearly enough in my posts that I was only talking about what I thought would be the drawbacks of implementing this in America at this stage of the game, that I was broad brushing an opinion at every country that does it (like Australia) and every country’s people that participate in that system.
Besides, like I said above, it may really be a moot point. the more I think about it and discuss it, the more I’m sure that the ACLU would challenge it and that the SCOTUS would strike any such law down as unconstitutional. I think that a case could be made very easily that compulsory voting was an abridgement of the rights and liberties guaranteed in by the Constitution and that the challenge would win fairly quickly.
Posted by Rene at November 8, 2008 10:06 AM
Peter –
“People are not equal. People should have the same rights, yes. But they’re not equal. I don’t think all of the no-shows are too dumb to vote. Some are too cynical, some just don’t feel strongly about any issues.
In the end, it boils down to: How can they be prepared to vote when they can’t even be bothered to spend the mininal effort required to vote?”
Maybe some of them would get prepared if they HAD to vote…?
People can change. (Perhaps not often, or easily, but the alternative is to write them off forever)
I can see where you’re coming from, and you do make some valid points, but I’d like to think some people just need some encouragement to start taking an active part in their own futures.
Cheers.
Posted by Rene at November 8, 2008 10:06 AM
Peter –
“People are not equal. People should have the same rights, yes. But they’re not equal. I don’t think all of the no-shows are too dumb to vote. Some are too cynical, some just don’t feel strongly about any issues.
In the end, it boils down to: How can they be prepared to vote when they can’t even be bothered to spend the mininal effort required to vote?”
Maybe some of them would get prepared if they HAD to vote…?
People can change. (Perhaps not often, or easily, but the alternative is to write them off forever)
I can see where you’re coming from, and you do make some valid points, but I’d like to think some people just need some encouragement to start taking an active part in their own futures.
Cheers.
Jerry, you’re kind of making the point for me here:
“But traffic laws are a different animal. I can show you quantifiable evidence that people refusing to stop for a red light or doing 75 in a school zone when the busses are leaving the school parking lot costs lives. The only thing that a pro-compulsory voting group in America could show is that there maybe might have been a different outcome to the 2000 election that might possibly have kept some bad things from happening over the last 8 years maybe.”
Leave aside the argument that even a “maybe” option to save lives lost over the last eight years might be a good thing, and you’re still citing an example of people disobeying the law for a reason to not have the law… How many people DO stop at red lights or stay within the speed limits in school districts?
I’m not convinced that the ones who wouldn’t vote would outweigh the ones who would…
“No, it’s not that some are too dumb, it’s that some just don’t care. They think that it will never matter who gets voted into office and they just don’t care. I actually know people who are otherwise very smart people, but they think that people that vote are stupid for wasting their time with a fixed or pointless process.”
Call me judgemental, but that sure sounds dumb to me 🙂 But if they feel that, let ’em turn up and put NotA on the ballot. Or pay the fine. Or kick up enough of a stink that if it is a “fixed or pointless process” it gets exposed and corrected.
As per previous to Rene, you do make some valid points, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I’ll stick with my original position.
Cheers.
Jerry, you’re kind of making the point for me here:
“But traffic laws are a different animal. I can show you quantifiable evidence that people refusing to stop for a red light or doing 75 in a school zone when the busses are leaving the school parking lot costs lives. The only thing that a pro-compulsory voting group in America could show is that there maybe might have been a different outcome to the 2000 election that might possibly have kept some bad things from happening over the last 8 years maybe.”
Leave aside the argument that even a “maybe” option to save lives lost over the last eight years might be a good thing, and you’re still citing an example of people disobeying the law for a reason to not have the law… How many people DO stop at red lights or stay within the speed limits in school districts?
I’m not convinced that the ones who wouldn’t vote would outweigh the ones who would…
“No, it’s not that some are too dumb, it’s that some just don’t care. They think that it will never matter who gets voted into office and they just don’t care. I actually know people who are otherwise very smart people, but they think that people that vote are stupid for wasting their time with a fixed or pointless process.”
Call me judgemental, but that sure sounds dumb to me 🙂 But if they feel that, let ’em turn up and put NotA on the ballot. Or pay the fine. Or kick up enough of a stink that if it is a “fixed or pointless process” it gets exposed and corrected.
As per previous to Rene, you do make some valid points, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I’ll stick with my original position.
Cheers.
Luigi, that’s awesome news about Dynamo 5. Congratulations!
Luigi, that’s awesome news about Dynamo 5. Congratulations!
The thing is, under our constitution there are rights are are guaranteed–they are not forced. You CAN own a gun. You CAN practice your religion. You CAN speak your mind. I would no more FORCE people to vote than I would insist they own a weapon, go to church or write snippy letters to the editor.
Saying they could keep the gun unloaded, read Christopher Hitchens during the service, or write letter complaining about having to write letters wouldn’t make it more palatable.
The analogy to traffic laws isn’t quite right either–there’s no obligation to drive. If you do there are rules to follow. You don’t have to vote but if you do there are also rules–just one vote, for example. Except in Chicago.
Someone mentioned our compulsory education laws and that’s not a bad point. Even that has its limits though–you can opt out of public education, though under strict guidelines. I think it’s pretty easy to argue that the harm to society of a person not being educated is likely to be several orders of magnitude more severe than any harm from that person not voting.
I’m happy for those who live under different rules and are pleased with them. We are very unlikely to change our rules here and none of the arguments presented thus far make me think otherwise. Most other western countries, to say nothing of the rest of the world, seem ok with living under a system that does not guarantee free speech to the degree that ours does. Different strokes for different folks, I guess, it would be bugging the hëll out of me.
Look, I’m just going to agree to disagree at this point and opt out of any further round and rounds about it.
I think that it’s a bad idea, that it would be taken less than well by a large portion of the American population and that it would get killed by groups like the ACLU and the courts.
You don’t. Fine. Have a good weekend. I’m going to slink off now and get ready to have a long cry over yet another upcoming birthday moving me one year closer to geezerhood.
Look, I’m just going to agree to disagree at this point and opt out of any further round and rounds about it.
I think that it’s a bad idea, that it would be taken less than well by a large portion of the American population and that it would get killed by groups like the ACLU and the courts.
You don’t. Fine. Have a good weekend. I’m going to slink off now and get ready to have a long cry over yet another upcoming birthday moving me one year closer to geezerhood.
closer to geezerhood.
That ship has sialed, my friend. It’s sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, and James made a movie about it.
“Closer to” geezerhood. That’s funny. Good one.
Now wait a second there, Mulligan. If I remember what Jerry said in a recent post, he’s actually several months YOUNGER than I am.
And I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Geezer Party.
Now wait a second there, Mulligan. If I remember what Jerry said in a recent post, he’s actually several months YOUNGER than I am.
And I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Geezer Party.
The more you think about things, the more you self-servingly convince yourself the ACLU is resolved to obstruct everything, and ignore the fact they don’t oppose the mandatory filing of taxes as obstructing free speech. But of course they’ll make an exception to their practices for you and oppose mandatory voting.
Oooooooookay.
“Now wait a second there, Mulligan. If I remember what Jerry said in a recent post, he’s actually several months YOUNGER than I am.”
38 this Tuesday, you old man. But, hey, Mulligan is still about a decade older than us!
~8?)`
“Now wait a second there, Mulligan. If I remember what Jerry said in a recent post, he’s actually several months YOUNGER than I am.”
38 this Tuesday, you old man. But, hey, Mulligan is still about a decade older than us!
~8?)`
I’m way past geezerhood. I’m a wizened sage.
“I’m a wizened sage.”
So you’re saying that if we add you to dishes such as soup or beans you’ll bring out a crisp, fresh flavor?
Pass.
Then I did remember correctly — 38 this past February, you young whippersnapper you.
And how exactly does one unwizen sage?
Then I did remember correctly — 38 this past February, you young whippersnapper you.
And how exactly does one unwizen sage?
“And how exactly does one unwizen sage?”
Soak in cool water – 1tablespoon water per 1/2 teaspoon dried sage?
“And how exactly does one unwizen sage?”
Soak in cool water – 1tablespoon water per 1/2 teaspoon dried sage?
If it wasn’t way past my bedtime I’d have a snappy comeback.
What were we talking about?
If it wasn’t way past my bedtime I’d have a snappy comeback.
What were we talking about?
Has anyone checked on Joe Biden?
Joe’s fine, I’m keeping over at my house in this cardboard box. I even poked holes in his back so he could breathe..Oh boy, ok, hang on, hang on… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXHaCEhOiWU
Has anyone checked on Joe Biden?
Joe’s fine, I’m keeping over at my house in this cardboard box. I even poked holes in his back so he could breathe..Oh boy, ok, hang on, hang on… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXHaCEhOiWU
Far better than trying to institute mandatory voting in the US would be to end this electoral college thing. I don’t think mandatory voting would have changed 2000, but populat vote would.
And I think it’s dumb that there are people out there that thing one candidate is as good as another. For one, I very much doubt Al Gore would have invaded Iraq, despite the protestations of a minority of Bush supporters that still mantain that the war was “unavoidable” (fancy way of denying Bush’s responsibility).
Far better than trying to institute mandatory voting in the US would be to end this electoral college thing. I don’t think mandatory voting would have changed 2000, but populat vote would.
And I think it’s dumb that there are people out there that thing one candidate is as good as another. For one, I very much doubt Al Gore would have invaded Iraq, despite the protestations of a minority of Bush supporters that still mantain that the war was “unavoidable” (fancy way of denying Bush’s responsibility).
Bill, splitting hairs, but under compulsory voting you can choose not to vote, but it’s going to cost you $25, or $50, or whatever… The only thing it says you can’t do is ignore the fact that there was an election.
(Hmmm.. Maybe people could have an opt out agreement which means they would agree to never have a vote in any election, so avoiding any fines? That also might make people think about the value of their right to vote, which serves the same purpose)
Agreeing to disagree is always a viable option.
I don’t throw ideas out looking to convert anyone, and there doesn’t have to be a winner in every discussion.
By the way, I’m 51, so geezerhood is probably much further away than any of you think.
Cheers.
’51’
It’s not a state of mind, it’s an area!
Indeed.
Or a prelude to some sort of Crisis!!!
Cheers.
Bladestar wrote: “So Rich, if the “majority” vote to take away EVERYTHING you own, and to make you a slave, and turn your loved ones into sex slaves, that’s OK with you because the “majority” voted for it?”
“You are a fûçkìņg idiot if you actually believe that just bacause the “majority” says so, that makes it right….”
You should be ashamed of yourself for directing such a vile and repulsive personal attack towards me. You are displaying the behavior of a very despicable and hateful human being. Shame on you and I hope someday soon you will learn to behave like a civilized person.
PAD wrote:
“Sure, lots of reasons: Bias. Stupidity. Arrogance. Ignorance. Hatred. Bigotry. Take your pick.”
No thank you. I will not pick any of the choices you have provided. But the “reasons” you supplied, the majority of them do seem to describe your response against those who do not agree with you on this subject matter. I find it baffling for a group of people who supposedly champion tolerance, understanding, and open mindedness that they themselves are often the biggest hypocrites in the entire “gay marriage” discussion as they display the biggest amounts of hated, bigotry, threats of harm, and slander against those who do not agree with them on this matter. Shame on you Mr. Peter David. If you think about it, isn’t it people like you — who display such unjustified anger and personal attacks against people you don’t even know — that really hurt the “gay marriage” movement? Think about it some instead of flying off the handle with another attack response.
PAD wrote:
“Sure, lots of reasons: Bias. Stupidity. Arrogance. Ignorance. Hatred. Bigotry. Take your pick.”
No thank you. I will not pick any of the choices you have provided. But the “reasons” you supplied, the majority of them do seem to describe your response against those who do not agree with you on this subject matter. I find it baffling for a group of people who supposedly champion tolerance, understanding, and open mindedness that they themselves are often the biggest hypocrites in the entire “gay marriage” discussion as they display the biggest amounts of hated, bigotry, threats of harm, and slander against those who do not agree with them on this matter. Shame on you Mr. Peter David. If you think about it, isn’t it people like you — who display such unjustified anger and personal attacks against people you don’t even know — that really hurt the “gay marriage” movement? Think about it some instead of flying off the handle with another attack response.
They people who “dont’ agree with them on this matter” want to limit the rights of a group of people to pursue happiness by marrying the ones they fall in love with. The people who champion this right do not, and think it’s wrong to limit this right. The former is indeed indicative of bigotry, as it is they personally attacking the rights of people they do not know. The latter is not.
Didn’t you know, Luigi? Pointing out the bigotry of these religious fanatics is intolerant? Hey, we tolerate you, we just want you to shut up.
Notice Rick couldn’t come up with any counter arguments, he just whined about people picking on him. Awwww.
I submit this to all who voted FOR Prop 8 or who supported it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27652443#27652443
I submit this to all who voted FOR Prop 8 or who supported it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27652443#27652443
Big difference between good human beungs and people like you Rich:
You want to take away people’s rights, we just say, “Live and let live”. You and your ilk are more like “very despicable and hateful human being”s than any of us who wants gays to have the same rights as everyone else.
How does gay marriage hurt you or anyone else?
You don’t have a real answer do you?
Why?
Because gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone anymore that “straight” marriage does.
Get off your high horse and grow up Rich.
Um, you’re looking at a mirror.
I can’t think of a more despicable or hateful thing than to think that a civil right can be voted upon by a majority of people.
And you’re being an intellectual coward for making these personal attacks instead of dealing with the argument.
Um, you’re looking at a mirror.
I can’t think of a more despicable or hateful thing than to think that a civil right can be voted upon by a majority of people.
And you’re being an intellectual coward for making these personal attacks instead of dealing with the argument.
John Scalzi said it well:
If the people voting for Proposition 8 couldn’t stand personally in front of a married couple, tell that couple they shouldn’t be married, and say that it is their right and duty to destroy that marriage, they should not vote for Proposition 8.
So, Rich, are you willing to stand in front of George Takei and say, “I want to destroy your marriage”?
OK, a number of people cited the fact that the DOJ declared there was “not a credible threat” in the assassination attempt against Obama in Denver. That actually proves my point. Did you guys read any of the specifics, or did you just read the headlines?
The guys were caught in Denver, staying at a hotel that they thought Obama was going to be staying at. They had a high powered rifle, scoped to 700+ yards. They had various other suspicious paraphenalia. They actually SAID they were going to shoot him. They had motive, a weapon, a plan (maybe not the best, but hey) … and the authorities there claim they weren’t a real threat to Obama. In a country where you can get tossed into the slammer joking about bombs in an airport, where you can get put under police surveillance for belonging to a world peace organization, where you can disappear into Guantanamo because somebody says you might be a terrorist … why are these guys not being prosecuted for an attempt on a presidential candidate’s life? Because, the DOJ says, it’s unlikely they would have gotten near enough to have completed it. Excuse me? I’ve read enough true crime books that there have been convictions for attempted murder of people who have chickened out at the last minute and gone home.
If you agree with the DOJ, feel free to take this challenge: Throw a rifle in the back of you car, soap your back window with “Goin’ to kill Bush”, and drive to Washington DC. Park in front of the White House.
I’ll see you in 20-30 years.
Rich, Bladestar, roger Tang — for God’s sake, settle down.
Rich, I’m afraid you misunderstand how our system of governance works. We are a representative democracy. That means that sovereignty rests in the hands leaders who derive their legitimacy from a popular vote.
It doesn’t mean that everything is up for a vote. Some of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. quite wisely chose to include a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution in order to protect certain basic liberties. The theory behind it is that there are certain rights that are inalienable, and should therefore not be subject to the whims of popular opinion.
Oh, and calling someone a “bigot” is not intolerant if the word is applied accurately. I think one can make a case that opposition to gay marriage meets the definition of the word “bigotry.”
Bigot: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
As an observation, those who approve of and support gay marriage are to some degree bigoted towards those who genuinely believe it to be a sin and that people of that persuasion are going to the hot place…
I subscribe to the liberal view, but I accept that is my belief, not anything I can categorically prove. And the other guy is entitled to disagree, even if I think he’s batass crazy to do so…
End of the day, we’re all digging in our heels and wailing “But I’m right and the other guy is wrong!”
Is it oxymoronic to be holier than thou when disagreeing with someone driven by religious belief?
Cheers.
The separation of Church and State is supposed to prevent šhìŧ like Prop 8.
Religion isn’t based on rational facts, it’s built on irrational faith.
The separation of Church and State is supposed to prevent šhìŧ like Prop 8.
Religion isn’t based on rational facts, it’s built on irrational faith.
Bladestar, religion and faith aren’t inherently “irrational” in my view. But I agree that matters of faith are best left to the individual and not to the state, and that people should not be able to impose their personal faith on others.
Oh, and regarding whether the First Amendment is supposed to prevent things like Prop 8, I’m inclined to agree. I think many proponents of gay marriage are hoping this issue makes it to the Supreme Court.