TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Your constitution
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Re: Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Be careful what you wish for.

There would be an option to not vote or excuse oneself from voting. They would just be required to state their intentions. Instead of punishment, there could just be incentive, such as a voter's tax break.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton There would be an option to not vote or excuse oneself from voting. They would just be required to state their intentions. Instead of punishment, there could just be incentive, such as a voter's tax break.

The least educated citizens wouldn't necessarily be counted on to take that option.

Look, the brilliance of our system is that everybody has the opportunity to vote. Those that don't care and choose not to be educated about the options available don't vote, and frankly that's fine with me - what troubles me is what would happen if the disproportionately large chunk of Americans who are horribly misguided or apathetic about the future of this country are compelled to the voting precincts by law. That would ruin even the illusion of "most qualified to be President" wins and create a stupid popularity contest about who is able to most appeal to the lowest denominator of the population. You want to talk about dumbing down the electoral process even further? That would do it.

It's a sad fact that not enough people in the US take governance seriously enough for mandatory voting to be successful even in spirit.

I'd have free hookers and blow for everyone

Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles If you had to write a new constitution for your country, what sort of things would you include in it that aren't currently in there?

id ban religion....its useless....

Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ id ban religion....its useless....

I'd ban you for the same reason.

Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ

My point exactly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov create a stupid popularity contest about who is able to most appeal to the lowest denominator of the population.

youre not saying that with a straight face are you?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You want to talk about dumbing down the electoral process even further? That would do it.

sorry, but thats simply impossible.

fact is, compulsory voting would even the playing field, and stop one-interest people from getting elected. you would need a platform that is as inclusive as possible. it would also help marginalise the religious right.

parties wont be forced to do "get out and vote drives", if everyone is forced to vote people take it more seriously (like in good old australia).

it gives the minority opinions a chance to be heard and might actually engender a little more variety in your incredibly polarised two party state.

i think your arguments are invalid because it wouldn�t change the nature of your laughable electoral process in ANY way.

and really, who says voting is in ANY WAY about being educated? how is an educated vote for bush any different from an uneducated one? i think a country that voted bush in for two terms has lost the argument concerning the relative intelligence of the voters (or non voters as the case may be).

Re: Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I'd ban you for the same reason.

Sick burn.

- The Production & Sale of Cannabis shall be regulated by the state.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by Audious PORKCHOP SANDWICHES.

I agree.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I agree.

OH SHIT, GET THE FUCK OUT!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN youre not saying that with a straight face are you?

Yes. Platforms would become irrelevant. Name recognition would mean everything. Let's be honest - that's why Bush won in 2000 and in 2004 - his name was recognizable. Now if you include the population that didn't vote (mostly because they took no interest in the election and did not choose to familiarize themselves with the choices) - then yes, it is entirely a competition of name recognition.

I think you're drastically over-estimating the intelligence of the average American on electoral matters. Europeans (and Aussies) tend to be much more engaged in their local politics. Americans just don't care. I don't think the rules should change until the mentality does. This election may go some way in doing that - on the Democratic side at least there's an energy that hasn't been seen in recent years, driving turnout in the primaries WAY up as more people become engaged in the process. This is in large part a result of Obama's unique ability to appeal to the disenfranchised and disillusioned - whether or not that instills a new sense of civic responsibility and duty that lasts beyond this election remains to be seen.

I think what Lesbian Dinosaur is trying to say is, Americans are already stupid as Llamas when it comes to electoral politics, as evidenced by the Bush double win. Don't fucking make it worse.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis I think what Lesbian Dinosaur is trying to say is, Americans are already stupid as Llamas when it comes to electoral politics, as evidenced by the Bush double win. Don't fucking make it worse.

Haha, yes more or less.

I think mandatory voting is a noble goal, but without certain prerequisites it could be even more dangerous than what we have.

In Australia and Europe where civic-mindedness tends to be more widespread, mandatory voting is feasible... but in the US that civic duty has been horribly eroded over the past 30 years (I blame Reagan, but that's another story) to the point where I just don't trust those Americans that aren't already voting to do their homework before going to the polls.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Yes. Platforms would become irrelevant. Name recognition would mean everything. Let's be honest - that's why Bush won in 2000 and in 2004 - his name was recognizable. Now if you include the population that didn't vote (mostly because they took no interest in the election and did not choose to familiarize themselves with the choices) - then yes, it is entirely a competition of name recognition.

i disagree. if youre already saying that bush's win(s) were due to name recognition, then how is your system of optional voting making any difference at all?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I think you're drastically over-estimating the intelligence of the average American on electoral matters. Europeans (and Aussies) tend to be much more engaged in their local politics. Americans just don't care. I don't think the rules should change until the mentality does.

well, i dont think the mentality will change until the rules do. to me, "you dont have to vote" sends a message that its unimportant.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov This election may go some way in doing that - on the Democratic side at least there's an energy that hasn't been seen in recent years, driving turnout in the primaries WAY up as more people become engaged in the process. This is in large part a result of Obama's unique ability to appeal to the disenfranchised and disillusioned - whether or not that instills a new sense of civic responsibility and duty that lasts beyond this election remains to be seen.

we'll have to agree to disagree again. i think the main reason there's such a turnout is everyone is united in their loathing of the current administration, and see this as a chance to pick their president (imo the winner of the dem primaries will be the next president, barring something unforseen occurring).

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I think what Lesbian Dinosaur is trying to say is, Americans are already stupid as Llamas when it comes to electoral politics, as evidenced by the Bush double win. Don't fucking make it worse.

hehe, im not sure it could BE worse. man, the speeches and parties we get on tv here, so devoid of anything meaningful. they remind me of university political rallies more than anything.

i dunno, perhaps im trying to fit square pegs in round holes, but i am still a firm supporter of compulsory voting.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I just don't trust those Americans that aren't already voting to do their homework before going to the polls.

do you find it funny though that people arent trusted to vote "properly" (whatever that means) but they can be trusted with assault rifles?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN do you find it funny though that people arent trusted to vote "properly" (whatever that means) but they can be trusted with assault rifles?

it takes much less intelligence to properly operate a gun than it does to understand the issues well enough to properly vote

RE: Bush and name recognition; that may have been true in 2004, but what about 2000? I don't think Al Gore had much less name recognition than Bush then...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN do you find it funny though that people arent trusted to vote "properly" (whatever that means) but they can be trusted with assault rifles?

And Bacardi 151.


And driving.


Yeah man, it's fucking scary.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your constitution

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN youre not saying that with a straight face are you? sorry, but thats simply impossible. fact is, compulsory voting would even the playing field, and stop one-interest people from getting elected. you would need a platform that is as inclusive as possible. it would also help marginalise the religious right. parties wont be forced to do "get out and vote drives", if everyone is forced to vote people take it more seriously (like in good old australia). it gives the minority opinions a chance to be heard and might actually engender a little more variety in your incredibly polarised two party state. i think your arguments are invalid because it wouldn�t change the nature of your laughable electoral process in ANY way. and really, who says voting is in ANY WAY about being educated? how is an educated vote for bush any different from an uneducated one? i think a country that voted bush in for two terms has lost the argument concerning the relative intelligence of the voters (or non voters as the case may be).

I now hand over the mic to pkc...

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles RE: Bush and name recognition; that may have been true in 2004, but what about 2000? I don't think Al Gore had much less name recognition than Bush then...

He bears his father's name, and people associated Gore with the Lewinsky scandal.

This is the same reason that Clinton has a large intrinsic advantage in this election by virtue of her surname. People that know nothing of her politics or her competitors will remember either A. that they loved Bill or B. that they loathed her for her role in the whole scandal. In effect, people that don't do their homework vote on emotion rather than issues. I'm simply against increasing the proportion of the population that does that.

And to answer PKC's argument that Bush's wins show that the American electorate is already stupid... well yes, that's why I don't care to make it worse. There is no doubt in my mind that if there had been 100% turnout in '04 that Bush would have won by a very large margin. People may not "like" him but they know him and Americans are afraid of change. So they vote what they know unless they have informed themselves enough to take a risk.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN do you find it funny though that people arent trusted to vote "properly" (whatever that means) but they can be trusted with assault rifles?

You assume I'm in favor of unrestricted access to firearms. (I'm not).

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You assume I'm in favor of unrestricted access to firearms. (I'm not).

My constitution would guarantee a right to bear arms.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton My constitution would guarantee a right to bear arms.

In the form of knives.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton My constitution would guarantee a right to bear arms.

My constitution would certainly not guarantee the unrestricted right to bear any weapon one might choose, which is the way you libertarian and NRA types seem to misinterpret our current Constitution.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.