Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Add to the list of past failures: pure democracy.

The simple fact is that people without skin in a game are not going to ponder the ramifications of their decision. So long as we subsidize and any other method of disconnecting the association of cause and effect, we can expect failure.

I am always suspicious of the frequent "get out the vote" campaigns. You will never see me lending to that cause. I am with 7wb5 in support of what little obstacles exist and in favor of a little more.

Only those who care enough to suffer a little inconvenience should be counted. Although, the state of Oregon went the opposite years ago by implementing mail order ballots. That has increased participation and in my fly by night opinion, resulted in more correct decisions than not.

We frequently have very difficult decisions to make by ballot. There are difficult and costly choices. But the state also goes to great lengths in creating informative and "balanced" booklets on the matters. They are full of written statements sponsored by concerned associations.

I am one of the weirdos that read almost every one before deciding on controversial topics. I get involved. And I follow the results with some nervous anticipation. I often wonder if everyone else makes such an effort, but I doubt that most people have the time. Nevertheless, I believe in the system and support the outcome.

Even when you lose on your position, you have to be humble and positive. "Alright then! This ship is pointed in the opposite direction for reasons that I don't understand, but I am going to do my share of the rowing nevertheless. At least I had some input on the matter..."

Farm_or wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:00 am

Only those who care enough to suffer a little inconvenience should be counted.

See, the problem with this is the inconvenience is often unevenly distributed. If someone has a car vs. relying on the bus, it's a lot faster to get to the polling place. A white collar worker may be able to vote in the morning and come in a little late to work, whereas an hourly worker would be penalized for being late. A single parent may have to stay with the kids, whereas a couple or a childless person is less burdened.

In fact, voting by mail would probably increase informed voting, not decrease it due to "convenience". While someone's filling out their ballot, they can be googling the candidates/questions they're unfamiliar with and make a more informed choice. I've definitely had the experience of going into the booth and realizing "fuck, I forgot about the (sheriff/school board/other minor position)”- a mail ballot would make that less of an issue.

jacob wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:52 pm

...no arrest record...

This would undoubtedly be the quickest and most effective way to eliminate people of color. You don't even need to be guilty, an arrest is all that is needed.

I like the idea of all taxes paid and child support payments up to date. To be sufficiently civic to be able to vote, you have to show some level of financial responsibility to your community.

Bankai wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:41 pm

a test designed to measure one's maturity, political & social awareness and lack of psychopathic traits would determine the right to vote

I find this highly offensive and discriminatory against psychopaths.

Psychopaths are much more likely to run for office than vote, so no worries there. Narcissists are more likely to vote.

I'm with RealPerson and fell-like-rain ... it's already hard enough for minorities to vote, no sense in making it harder.

Any qualification we establish other than breathing will inject some bias into the process. We could make people watch a video before voting to explain the ballot at least, but that would make the process longer. Honestly, I don't know why voting doesn't take place over two days with mandatory time off on one day to make it easier for everyone to vote (especially during congressional and presidential elections). That would allow some extra time for on-the-spot education of the process and some basic information about the races. I would like to see it become more of a sacred occasion where people took pride in participating and encouraging others to participate. Making it a holiday of sorts would help with that as well as making it easier for lower income people to get out to vote.

If arrest or felony records are such a big deal, just let it expire after N years. 80 million Americans have some kind of arrest record. I was actually just going by what it takes to become a naturalized citizen these days.

In practice, this could be implemented similarly to getting an organ donor-endorsement on your driver's license and taking the civics test accordingly (if you want the voting-endorsement). It could all be done at the same time at the DMV (yay!). Just like the driver's license, there would be a small booklet covering all the questions (in case you didn't know) and a 30 question multiple choice using the same testing system. You'd bring a copy of your tax returns for the last 5 years (just like the real citizenship test).

In order to vote, you'd just bring your driver's license to the polling place. No need to jump through other hoops---if you have the endorsement, you're already registered as a voter.

Well, if we are talking about practical modifications, I think addressing the failures of our current system is the way to go. Just ensuring an accurate count would be a good start. Then prosecuting voter fraud would be another. Don't expect the politicians to get behind this, though.

But if we are throwing out the existing system, I could see voting being done with taxes, and your vote counts in direct proportion to your tax bill. Allow people to buy more influence, by paying more tax. Add a minimal popular vote threshold to stop outright buying of elections.

Then when one wants to donate to a campaign, it's used for our budget, not a politician's. And the rich will have a defense against the ravenous appetite of the masses. Just in general, it would be easier to curb some of our current abuses, but I'm sure it would be open to new abuses...

One of the more interesting things I've seen recently is liquid democracy. This is how the various European Pirate Parties operate. Effectively, the party has some delegates in congress and then they have a website. The delegates vote according to what the voters tell them on the website.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy

And because I am as disagreeable as I am, I have to disagree with you guys concerned about stupid voters. The stupider a potential voters is, the more I want her vote to count.

I want the HS dropout SJW screaming about whatever she's screaming about to vote, and for her vote to count. And the homeless guy dancing with a old hotdog? Him too. And every f'ing body on welfare, them too.

Not because I think they impart any special wisdom to the process. But because the least marginal among us, are benefited more by the empowerment and participation of the marginal than they are inconvenienced by it.

Anything that allows our least effective citizens to feel a part of the process, and to contribute, (regardless of the value of the contribution) is good for me. Disenfranchisement has effects far beyond elections.

As far as the US is concerned, the fight for political franchise and its documentation over a long period of time, first for the non-propertied, then for women, then for African Americans makes a pull back or the imposition of new criteria difficult. However, I (and I am assuming others) do not think franchise was meant to extend to those who oppose the fundamental tenets of the Constitution and/or their basis in the Western religious and philosophical thought systems from which they arose. Such opposition raises national sovereignty issues, similar to the hacking scandal, but on an internal basis. I think that's the issue people are concerned with when this issue arises, not issues of general intelligence, common knowledge, civic virtue etc.

The Constitution allows for change. That's why we have Amendments. An Amendment can even allow for something that we'd currently call unconstitutional, such as limiting the right to keep & bear arms.

I think over 1/3 of the amendments after the Bill of Rights were related to franchise. I believe all were moving towards inclusion, not exclusion.

Issues of ability will always remain on the table and that is why there has been an on-going battle for extended franchise as well as intimidation and fraud protection. What I'm talking about is voter base seeking a candidate to run on a platform that has at its worldview, a hermeneutic that is self-consciously and patently anti-Constitutional with a capital "C". We are always fighting over what exactly is Constitutional from legal, philosophical and practical points of views. But despite the perennial fascist/communistic type slurs, we have felt relatively safe that the the arguments share the common ground of what is generally referred to as The Western Tradition. Maybe I'm just misreading the tea leaves here, but I thought the possibility of franchising a constituency that rests outside of that tradition as being the ultimate concern with regard to the discussion of immigration, citizenship and ultimately, voting.

jacob wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:52 pm

Perhaps having to earn that status by being able qualify as a citizen (passing the civics test, no felonies, no arrest record, all taxes paid, ...) and then repeating/renewing the qualification every 10 years, like at age 20, 30, 40, ....

So even people arrested and not charged with anything would be disqualified?

@EMJ - It relates to so-called "good moral character" which I suppose is something the country wants its citizens to have if it gets to have a say in it which is the case for naturalized citizens. See https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... ation.html

Strangely, they don't require drug test (unlike many corporations). Also traffic violations <$500 are apparently not any indication of bad moral character(!) regardless of the quantity of road menacing one does.

In all fairness, an arrest w/o a charge doesn't immediately disqualify you, but it's certainly something that's taken into account when judging your worthiness to be(come) a citizen. Maybe it's some kind of where there's smoke, there might be fire things...

My point is that there's already a system in place for figuring out whether someone is worthy to become a citizen. So why not just take that and apply it to everybody in all fairness? We can always hash out the details.

Other countries would have other criteria. For example, many countries use a merit based point system, where they might not care about criminal history but then require a university degree, a full time job, and the ability to pass a 9th grade language/written test. (Also something many would fail at.)

PS: I'm somewhere between just kidding and pointing out the hypocrisy wrt citizenship standards while at the same time suggesting easy implementations using existing systems.

PS: I'm somewhere between just kidding and pointing out the hypocrisy wrt citizenship standards while at the same time suggesting paths that would somewhat easy to implement.

I think naturalized citizens are nearly twice as likely to cast a vote, so maybe the higher standard is appropriate.

If so, I am sure it was accidental.

A lot of people plead no contest to save money on lawyer fees, only people with money can afford to defend their innocence. I agree with the idea in principle, but our legal system is too flawed in that regard to be reliable.

I don't want to limit who can vote. I want everyone to vote. Civic engagement is dying yet it's crucial to the well-being of a society. Voting is a small act but a uniting one.

jacob wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:18 am

In order to vote, you'd just bring your driver's license to the polling place. No need to jump through other hoops---if you have the endorsement, you're already registered as a voter.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... me/537792/

Careful, you'll get tossed in with the alt right, if you add even more requirements on top of just an ID* it will be bedlam, especially those where ethnic minorities are statistically more likely to be disqualified. Putting hoops for people to jump through in order to be qualified (endorsed) to vote will dredge up ugly memories from the nation's past and I think is a bad idea, even though big swaths of the country would like it.

*After being struck down 5 times the Texas law did finally win in an appeal earlier this year.

Riggerjack wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:44 am

And because I am as disagreeable as I am, I have to disagree with you guys concerned about stupid voters.

Not because I think they impart any special wisdom to the process. But because the least marginal among us, are benefited more by the empowerment and participation of the marginal than they are inconvenienced by it.

The first part of your rationale reminds me of a broken clock, but I agree nonetheless

Plot Twist-would you support penalizing citizens in some way if they didn't vote?

A lot to chew on here...

1. Participation should not be limited, people who feel disenfranchised are more likely to try overturning the system (I often wonder if this makes a difference anyway/how many Antifa /BLM/protesters actually voted?).

2. The idea that your vote counts more depending upon your contribution to the system in time or money seems fair, but could lead to the same consequences as point one above. (Wouldn't this lead to more balance naturally though, as the poor out number the rich? I would personally be on board if it also banned campaign contributions/lobbying).

3. It is highly doubtful that the framers intended the voting process to be used to undermine the fundamental ideas of western civ, at the same time they understood the necessity of flexibility in the face of changing circumstances, thankfully checks and balances, and the high bar for ratifying an amendment make change difficult.(I'm continually impressed by the wisdom and foresight of those guys).

4. Requiring proof of competency in the form of a civics test / clean record would probably ensure that we get more informed/ethical voters, but could again lead to a large segment of disenfranchised, resentful people. Also, turnout is so low, it is almost a moot point.

Phew...

Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Fair enough.

Maybe the minor changes suggested here, such as requiring the bare minimum proof of citizenship to vote, Subjecting candidates to an exam to gauge competency, and passing laws to curtail the negative effects of corporations and the rich buying influence, while still ensuring they are represented, would be enough to restore faith in the system?

Anyway interesting stuff, thanks all.

plantingourpennies wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:03 pm

Plot Twist-would you support penalizing citizens in some way if they didn't vote?

I think the whole recent obamacare debacle shows that people in the states really, really resent the government compelling behavior. Turnout would probably sink like a rock, or people would get cute and start electing obnoxious characters out of spite, kinda like I did in the last election.