May 19, 2005
Lazy Americans
It is always interesting to listen to the excuses for why people do not go out to vote.
Some people say that they are too busy, others say that they do not know enough about the candidates or the issues, some say that they do not like any of the candidates, and others are just plain lazy.
Whenever I hear these lame excuses I get upset because Americans will wait in line for hours to watch the latest Star Wars or ride on a new ride at Disneyland, but they will not even take an hour or two out of their day to vote.
I heard on the radio today that people were lining up at 6 a.m. this morning in order to see the new Star Wars that opens at midnight. This caused me to think of a solution to get people to vote. We can tell them that they are really waiting in line for the next great movie and instead they will be waiting in line to vote. Americans need to get their priorities in order and realize that there are more important things in life than Star Wars.
Posted by Nathan Melton at May 19, 2005 01:17 AMAmericans are only lazy about certain things.
If you consider the U.S.’s Competitiveness Score and GDP, the people are not generally lazy.
However, humans do have a natural tendency to be
lazy, but it is immoral to surrender to it.
But, why is it human nature to be lazy?
Because the opposite of laziness is work, and
work is painful. So, some people search for ways
to plunder the fruits of others’ labor. Some
people succumb to greed and corruption,
especially when many temptations exist. As time
goes by, some politicians eventually find ways
to pervert the laws to legalize plunder. When
does the plunder end ? Only when plunder is
more painful.
Too much laziness breeds greed, corruption, unnecessary over-complication to hide what is really happening, which reduces transparency and accountability.
In the case of voters, it’s not simply laziness.
It is futility and frustration. It’s not
laziness alone. It’s just that nothing seems
to be working, regardless of how they vote.
Government is still screwed up regardless of
which party has a majority/minority. The
choices stink (which is why we need an Approval Voting System), and government continues to
grow and grow and consume more and more, and
the voters have essentially given up.
This country faces many problems, but the two biggest core problems are:
(a) government is irresponsible, unaccountable, and arrogant
(b) most voters are frustrated, uninformed, disaffected, and apathetic
And the many symptoms of this are:
(01) declining quality of Public Education; declining numbers of engineers and scientists;
(02) troubled and mismanaged Social Security and Medicare systems; an aging population;
(03) $8 trillion national debt and growing fast; rising personal debt of $27 trillion;
(04) astronomical health care costs;
(05) decline in manufacturing; soon, we won’t know how to make anything;
(06) energy vulnerability; no Energy Plan;
(07) terrorism, unsecured borders, illegal aliens;
(08) corporate and investor fraud; insufficiently regulated capitalism;
(09) ridiculously complex tax-everything-from-A-to-Z Tax-System;
(10) cultural, race, and religious intolerance; violation of the 1st Amendment; moral decline;
(11) legal plunder and the infliction of countless wasteful systems upon society; perversion of the law to do the very things it is supposed to prevent; disregard of the constitution;
(12) a dysfunctional judicial and prison system that releases sociopaths, pedophiles, and murderers back into society to commit more crimes;
(13) IDentity theft; America’s fastest growing crime
(14) damage to the environment; pollution of the land, water, and air; where’s the EPA?
(15) government growing and growing (at all levels);
And $40 trillion in total debt ($8 trillion national debt, $27 trillion personal debt, $5 trillion corporate, financial, etc. debt), only magnifies these problems.
I don’t mean to be alarmist or cynical, but all of that above most likely will cause a gradual and inevitable decline of the U.S., a shrinking middle-income population, increasingly poorer population, increased crime, poverty, ignorance, and disaffection.
That’s why it’s important for voters do their part and take action soon to peacefully force government to be responsible, transparent, and accountable, because government will never do it themselves, and government will continue to arrogantly ignore the voters and continue the corruption, pork-barrel, pandering, lying, bribery, wealth redistribution, the distraction of petty partisan bickering, and abuse of the people, and grid-lock, unless the voters peacefully force government to be pass some fundamental reforms to be transparent, accountable, and responsible.
Rather than despair, voters should use this one simple solution that is: easy to understand, easy to peacefully implement, wisely uses the one thing each voter already has, and costs nothing: their vote
But the vote has to be used wisely.
Each voter must use this one simple idea,
to ensure that their one vote counts,
to peacefully force government to be Transparent and Accountable:
[X]VOTE only for NON-incumbents
and NON-main-party candidates.
NO exceptions.
Repeatedly , EVERY election.
UNTIL things drastically improve.
(until a list of major reforms are implemented).
Could it really be that simple? Yes.
The only difficulty is convincing voters that
they must unite to vote only for non-incumbents and non-main-party candidates.
Is that possible? Maybe.
In 1992, voters voted out a lot of incumbents.
The only problem was that they replaced them
with more Democrats and Republicans.
So, nothing really changed much.
But, what if, next time, we all voted only for
for third party candidates (or write-ins) ?
This one simple idea would get their attention fast, and a lot of the nation’s problems
would probably suddenly start getting resolved.
getting resolved
I should point out that many people do not believe they can make a difference. Those living in poverty for example are the least likely to vote while the Top 10% will vote.
There is also the fact that Voting is not a Holiday. You need to call in sick or take a Leave to Vote. That Free Day is very valuable in a country with the fewest Holidays in the Industrialized World.
Posted by: Aldous at May 19, 2005 04:23 AMWow. I just found out that 8 Billion Dollars of Oil Revenue was stolen from Iraq by the United States. I must be lazy not to know that. Oh well, the price for Spreading Freedom…
Posted by: Aldous at May 19, 2005 05:05 AMYeah, I blogged on the misallocation of funds last June. That’s why the GOP focus on the Oil for Food thing is just ridiculous. They couldn’t manage it any better. But you won’t see Coleman trying to get to the bottom of that mess.
There’s really no excuse for not voting. The polls open early and close late. Too many people just don’t think their vote matters.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 19, 2005 05:53 AMPersonally, I prefer that those who are too lazy to vote stay home on election day. If they are too lazy to gather facts and form an opinion, they would be voting for the wrong reason.
Posted by: tomd at May 19, 2005 05:54 AM“However, humans do have a natural tendency to be
lazy, but it is immoral to surrender to it.”
Oh, how true! I’ve always wondered how humans made it through 140,000 years without civilization to force them into labor. Can you imagine all those fat lazy loafs lounging around in their caves? I swear, the discovery of fire must of had something to do with passing gas. Thank the gods we now have wages to spur us awake every morning.
And it is a real mystery why people don’t vote. I mean with all the well-reasoned discourse, pressing issues that have direct impact on our survival, and all the hard work and compromise from our saintly representatives, it just dosn’t make any sense why folks wouldn’t want to get involved. Seriously, how do people expect to have all those great $25,000 a plate gala balls if they don’t get involved? Think of all the multi-million dollar “awareness” programs that will go unimplemented. If people would just golf more, maybe they’d realize just how important politics are.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 19, 2005 08:02 AMOk… here’s my question — If you’ve honestly and earnestly studied the candidates and the issues, and are still undecided on how to cast your vote, is it better to vote randomly, or to not vote at all? Is voting for voting’s sake really that important?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 19, 2005 09:07 AMBuilding on what Rob said, people who don’t want to take the time to study the issues are making a good choice not to vote. They have (explicitly or tacitly) decided that their fellow citizens have shown sufficient judgment and that they accept the result. I don’t have any trouble with people not voting. It bothers me only when the non-voters complain and/or try to make it sound like they are aggrieved.
Posted by: Jack at May 19, 2005 09:12 AMJoseph and OSI, your premise that the human species is lazy in general is not born out by evidence and history. The human species is motivated by many of the same internal stimuli as animals. If they need shelter, their activity level to acquire it will increase proportionately to the perceived need for it. Same with food, water and air. Deprive a human of their perceived necessities and their activity level will increase proportionately.
AP is right, a lack of faith in the belief that their vote will matter is the perception that democtivates many humans to vote. It is not laziness, it is the absence of perception that going to vote is vital to their survival and needs.
To say humans are basically lazy is too simple a view, and explains virtually nothing about complex human behavior which is inexplicable according to that view. I know my vote down here in Texas does not count and means nothing, yet, I vote each and everytime? How does you lazy theory explain that?
Why will you stand in line for hours to watch Star Wars and not stand in line to vote is an interesting question that has a very simple answer. The answers posted to this point address the issues of what is wrong in this country, who votes and who doesn’t and, what impact certain groups have on the overall election, etc. All well and good but, not focused on the question.
Question : Wait hours for movie but not to vote, WHY?
The movie offers anticipated entertainment. In the case of Star Wars there is a history of characters and plots, people have seen promotions on TV and other media that while fantasies are also TRUTHS. Darth Vader will evolve as advertised and, will behave as advertised and anticipated. People will not be disappointed about the oucome of the movie. There is historical data showing this.
Voting is a crapshoot for many of the reasons alluded to in previous posts. People (even the most astute regarding the issues) do not really know if 1) their vote will make a difference, 2) if their candidate will really deliver what he promises, 3) don’t vote because the history of false promises gives them a “what’s the difference who wins”, everything will be just as bad, attitude.
Posted by: steve at May 19, 2005 10:03 AMI agree that voting just to vote is counter- productive to the cause, I personally hate it when celebrities and such herd up voters like cattle, because these people aren’t voting on the issues, they’re voting for P. Diddy! It’s 2005 and elections are not kept secret(especially presidential elections-you’re about to puke by November) they just don’t want to!!
Posted by: Traci at May 19, 2005 10:26 AMSteve, as far as I’m concerned elections are high drama. They have many the elements you attribute to Star Wars. There is history, characters, plots, and you have a really good idea of what you’ll get IF you’re paying attention.
Traci, I feel the same way about all the “voters” those wackos like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell round up.
AP~
Speaking their views to their followers(at their religious shindigs) is quite different than running around the streets with clip-boards randomely signing people up! I think I can say with certainty that anyone caught up in Pat or Jerry was going to follow their lead anyways w/out any persuading!!!
| David R. Remer wrote:
|
| Joseph and OSI, your premise that the human
| species is lazy in general is not born out by
| evidence and history. The human species is
| motivated by many of the same internal stimuli
| as animals. If they need shelter, their
| activity level to acquire it will increase
| proportionately to the perceived need for it.
| Same with food, water and air. Deprive a human
| of their perceived necessities and their
| activity level will increase proportionately.
| AP is right, a lack of faith in the belief
| that their vote will matter is the perception
| that democtivates many humans to vote. It is
| not laziness, it is the absence of perception
| that going to vote is vital to their survival
| and needs.
| To say humans are basically lazy is too simple
| a view, and explains virtually nothing about
| complex human behavior which is inexplicable
| according to that view. I know my vote down
| here in Texas does not count and means
| nothing, yet, I vote each and everytime? How
| does you lazy theory explain that?
|
David, you’re needlessly arguing a point that we’re actually in agreement on; the main reason why many people don’t vote. If you’ll re-read my post, you’ll see that I did not attribute the lack of voting to laziness. I primarily attribute it to futility and frustration.
I wrote (above):
| In the case of voters, it’s not simply laziness.
| It is futility and frustration. It’s not
| laziness alone. It’s just that nothing seems
| to be working, regardless of how they vote.
| Government is still screwed up regardless of
| which party has a majority/minority.
|
Also, of course animals will act to preserve their own life. Laziness does not typically override that self-preservation. That does not prove that humans do not have a natural tendency to be lazy. The tendency does exist, and that’s why animals look for the path of least resistance which is sometimes not moral or ethical (especially amongst animals). Laziness is a natural tendency, but it is our sense of morals and values that keeps us from surrendering to it completely.
The question is not laziness but motivation. Both parties need to realize that they need leaders more than mechanical special interests spouters. Governement needs a compelling human face and feel to it to sustain voter interest.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2005 11:20 AMThe thing that realy grabs my back side is after the elecions the non voters want to grip about the people voters put in office.
IF YOU DON’T VOTE DON’T BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
American Pundit, I agree that my analogy between Star Wars and voting bears common elements.
I think your statement of “and you have a really good idea of what you’ll get IF your paying attention” should read ;
and you have a really good idea of what YOU HAVE BEEN PROMISED, if your paying attention.
In creating catagories of wackos I think we have to include Michael Moore and a list of hollywood actors and actresses and rock stars that would be longer than a roll of toilet paper with the names in #8 font.
Posted by: steve at May 19, 2005 11:22 AMNext time, I’ll remember the *sarcasm* tag.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 19, 2005 11:37 AM| Posted by: Rob Cottrell
|
| Ok… here’s my question — If you’ve honestly
| and earnestly studied the candidates and the
| issues, and are still undecided on how to cast
| your vote, is it better to vote randomly, or
| to not vote at all? Is voting for voting’s
| sake really that important?
|
Perhaps the wisest thing all voters could do:
(01) to make their vote count the most;
(02) to peacefully force government to reform;
(03) to force politicians to police their own ranks;
(04) that is very simple; which increases likelihood of success;
(05) that is very easy to understand;
(06) that will increase transparency and accountability;
(07) that costs nothing;
(08) that doesn’t need a party affiliation;
(09) that would eliminate pork-barrel
(10) that would reduce pandering;
(11) that would reduce waste;
(12) that would reduce greed, and corruption;
(13) that eliminates the need for term limits; and eliminate bad career politicians;
(14) that sends a clear message to politicians that can not be ignored any longer;
(15) that would make elections less expensive;
(16) that will reduce negative campaigning;
(17) that will reduce apathy and sense of futility;
(18) that ends voters foolishly empowering politicians to continue the abuse and corruption;
(19) that proves that politicians don’t have any power except for the power voters give them;
(20) that would be fun to watch even if it doesn’t work; why not? nothing else is working anyway;
(21) that would cure the jelly-brain disease that befall politicians soon after being elected;
(22) that would quickly identify the truly irresponsible and corrupt within government;
(23) that ….. there’s many more good reasons….
…. is:
[X] VOTE only for NON-incumbents
and NON-main-party candidates.
NO exceptions.
Repeatedly , EVERY election.
UNTIL things drastically improve.
UNTIL government makes some fundamental changes, such as:
(01) allow only ONE item per Bill; this will let us see what’s really going on (i.e. transparency);
(02) widely publicize politicians voting records;
(03) cut spending, waste, pork-barrel, bribes, attention to special interests;
(04) implement a simple FLAT INCOME TAX RATE system;
(05) get rid of the filibuster; let voters choose if congress is in grid-lock;
(06) enforce the laws better; end legal plunder; secure the borders; implement biometrics IDentification; end IDentity theft; increase national security;
(07) either fix, or phase-out Social Security, Medicare, etc. and other abused and mismanaged systems;
(08) uphold the Constitution;
(09) balance the budget and quit borrowing and spending like there’s no tomorrow’
(10) improve public education; the future of the country depends on it;
(11) eliminate unnecessary over-complications, rules, etc. simplify government, make it transparent every step of the way, and hold the irresponsible accountable
Because, it matters less WHO you vote for, than whether they will be responsible and accountable after being elected.
Especially, since many become afflicted with the “jelly-brain” disease shortly after being elected to office.
Maybe this is the reason people don’t vote:
______________________________________________
“Such people must be shot in the forehead,” Uzbekistan dictator Islam Karimov once said of political dissidents. “If necessary, I’ll shoot them myself.” When not personally gunning down his opposition, Karimov keeps busy by instructing his security forces to boil, rape or asphyxiate political prisoners.
ADVERTISEMENT
Luckily for Karimov, he’s a key US ally in the war on terror. The brutal events of last week only confirmed that awful reality. For months the Uzbek government had incarcerated 23 businessmen in the eastern city of Andijan on trumped-up charges of supporting an obscure Islamist group. Last week, militants stormed the prison and freed the prisoners. When thousands of demonstrators, emboldened by the jail break, assembled in Andijan’s town square to protest their country’s climate of repression, corruption and poverty, Karimov travelled to the city and instructed his soldiers to open fire on the crowd. Violence soon spread to the border with Kyrgyzstan, as soldiers allegedly targeted women and children. Anywhere from a few hundred to 745 people are reported dead.
The Bush Administration’s response to the butchery was both comical and sad. “We have some concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan, but we are concerned about the outbreak of violence, particularly by some members of a terrorist group freed from prison,” Scott McClellan said. “The people of Uzbekistan want to see more representative and democratic government, but that should come through peaceful means, not through violence.”
How peaceful change will occur when the US has supplied Karimov with $500 million in military aid and waived human rights requirements for military and non-proliferation assistance is anyone’s guess. Shortly after 9/11, Uzbekistan granted the US a crucial air base to use for the war in Afghanistan.
The Bush Administration then began funneling $79 in aid to Uzbek security forces at the same time the State Department was condemning “torture as a routine investigation technique.” When Colin Powell tried to cut off $18 million in additional aid for the security forces, General Richard Myers protested, and forced Powell to restore $7 million.
And just two weeks ago, the New York Times reported that the CIA had sent at least a dozen suspected terrorists to Uzbekistan for interrogation via a secret rendition program. “In my view, we shouldn’t let any single issue drive a relationship with any single county,” Myers said, dismissing human rights concerns. “It doesn’t seem to be good policy to me.”
Meanwhile, on a recent trip to Europe, Bush appeared even more divorced from reality than usual. “We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability,” he said in Latvia. Then again, this is the man who once told the New Yorker, “No president has ever done more for human rights than I have.”
Posted by: Aldous at May 19, 2005 11:57 AMI personally have no problem with people that don’t vote, if they don’t know the issues, don’t care, think their vote won’t count, they should stay home.
A national holiday for elections will do nothing but reduce the GDP, the people that would vote, will, the ones that don’t will go birdwatching,fishing,watch tv, ect.ect.
In a debate about an issue(any issue, pick one) where opposing sides are debating the pro’s/con’s, and someone(with less than wonderfull intelligence), jumps up and shouts..”pumpkin pie”, do you really want them voting?
I would rather put voteing booths at the top of a tree (climb it to vote), than have a collection of idiots swing a vote one way or the other without knowing what they voted for!
(we can put in wheelchair ramps for those that can’t climb)
If I dont know the issues or who is running, I would rather leave it blank, even if someone I later opposed got elected, at least someone that had an opinion elected them!
Posted by: Beagle at May 19, 2005 12:33 PMAldous
With all due respect, the Uzbek situation is much more complicated than your reporter thinks. I have been concerned about this for awhile. I know people involved and worry about what might happen. To make this a partisan issue is foolish and counterproductive. It could literally get people killed.
I don’t know where the article came from, but it is not well considered.
Posted by: Jack at May 19, 2005 12:35 PM“The thing that realy grabs my back side is after the elecions the non voters want to grip about the people voters put in office.
IF YOU DON’T VOTE DON’T BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
I’m more bothered by those who voted for Bush and are now complaining about him. If you don’t like him, it’s your own d*** fault!
Most of the non-voters that I hear “bitching” are complaining about the lack of good candidates, not about who one the election. Because of the primaries, the far-wings choose the major candidates, and the mainstream gets left without representation. Bush and Kerry were BOTH unappealing options in the last election. Given that kind of choice, many people prefer to stay home.
Based upon my limited sampling among friends & family, I would guess that at least 75% of voters voted AGAINST a candidate instead of FOR one. For example, I don’t know a single person who really liked what Kerry stood for, but I know dozens who voted for him because they didn’t like Bush. And I know many who can’t stand Bush, but didn’t want to vote for a flip-flopper.
If more disaffected voters were willing to vote for third-party candidates, we might see some changes in this. Not that the third-parties would become stronger, but that the Ds and Rs would move back to the middle to reclaim some of those voters.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 19, 2005 12:43 PMWhen its all said and done, we would have an incredibly ideal world similar to what posters are advocating, I guess there are 3 ideal worlds 1) policies of liberals (at all extremes), 2) policies of conservatives (all all extremes) and 3) policies that are acceptable to liberals and conservatives of of any party affiliation.
There are more problems than can possibly be fixed or even stabilized to everyones satisfaction.
Why do we concern ourselves with what happens in other parts of the world. If it is part of a country’s culture, political practice, human rights policy (that we find revolting, penal codes, etc., leave it alone. Time and money is better spent fixing problems that we have here at home. How about taking a chance on “lead by example” instead of trying to impose our will where it is generally not wanted.
I care how somebody gets interrogated here in the US not elsewhere. In fact if questionable (by our standards) tactics are used elsewhere to get information of benefit to us - so what.
There are lists upon lists of things that should be done in this thread that 100 years of presidents and majority congress and senate bodies of both parties have made no progress on.
How many votes, how many elections, how much advocate urging is it going to take. For every problem that is alleviated, several more take it’s place.
Lets work in our own backyard and not worry about who else in the world is shooting each other in the head. If they are agressive towards us lets respond by leaving a big hole where their country used to be.
Posted by: Steve at May 19, 2005 12:51 PMLocal government usually has the greatest impact on our lives, and yet less than 500,000 people voted in the LA mayoral election this past Tuesday. In a city of millions, not even a half-million cared enough to vote.
I always try to vote, and I appreciate those who abstain for giving my vote so much weight. But I would be a lot happier if people did care enough to spare some time and help decide how our city/state/country is run.
I was raised by people whose voting rights were denied by discriminatory laws. Once they secured their rights, they ALWAYS voted. They didn’t care if they were making a difference or not. They were expressing themselves and trying. That’s all anyone cas ask.
Posted by: Michael at May 19, 2005 12:57 PMJoseph Briggs!!! Where have you been hiding yourself, sir? After reading your post, I just realized how much I’ve missed you here.
In Australia, they fine people who don’t vote. The attitude is that if you live in the country then you are required to particpate in the democracy. Of course the argument against this is the idea that to live in freedom also means that people shouldn’t be forced to vote if they don’t want to.
Posted by: Adrienne at May 19, 2005 01:11 PMTo:
One-Simple-Idea.com - for Transparency and Accountability
You can cut and paste your stuff somewhere else…I’m not interested in a groups talking points, but legitimate discourse which as a general rule this format puts forth…Ideally you may have a point, but realistically it doesn’t exist. You have too many targets…
Clayton wrote:
| Ideally you may have a point, but realistically it doesn’t exist. You have too many targets…
Clayton,
What do you mean by “too many targets” ?
What do you mean by group? It’s just me? I’m not a party or organization or group.
I put forth ideas I feel are important, as does everyone else here.
Many of the topics I address always boil down to a few root causes which I comment on,
rather than wallow in the minutiae of process and over-complication.
Too often, I see the crew of a sinking ship trying to fix the rudder while there’s a gigantic hole in the hull.
It often doesn’t make sense to focus on so many different problems all with the same root cause, without ever addressing the root cause.
Perhaps the root causes should be focused on first? Before the ship sinks.
It’s not all cut & paste. All of my posts are significantly different, evolving over time, even if the general core message is consistent. My opinions are typically germane to the topic, and have evolved some over time, learning from other people’s facts and logic.
If you don’t like my posts, then simply don’t read them.
A number of people have posted the “if you don’t vote, don’t complain” attitude. It is interesting looking at this issue from the student perspective. Many of my peers at San Jose City College (San Jose, CA) have indicated that they simply don’t care about politics and that they have become so disenfranchised by the whole political process and the partisanship that they would rather go play on their X-Box then spend some time looking at the issues. Also, the amount of research required in order to be an “informed” voter really does compete at times with school obligations. But in the end, there is a great deal of logic in not complaining if you didn’t participate; every vote does count, especially when around 2% of the voting population put the President in office for a second term (I would hardly call 2% a vindication of the first election; incumbents are generally harder to beat). Incidentally, I regularly contact my state and federal congressional representatives, and they do care about what I say, which only motivates me more to vote to begin with.
Posted by: ant at May 19, 2005 05:00 PMRon Brown,
The thing that realy grabs my back side is after the elecions the non voters want to grip about the people voters put in office. IF YOU DON’T VOTE DON’T BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the problem I have with people like you, you are merely perpetuating the strength of the two party system and allowing politicians to get away with more crap. Like in the last election, neither candidate was very strong and many people felt like they were choosing a lesser of two evils or that they were settling. People who are completely fed up with this can choose to not support either slug rather than give non-representative support.
The fact that many times we are not given a good selection is, if anything, more of a reason to bitch, not less. I understand that people who are merely too lazy to act on their beliefs should indeed S-T-F-U, but many people deserve to be unhappy with the present system.
Posted by: Zeek at May 19, 2005 05:25 PMZeek,
Absolutely. Perpetuating the Two-ONLY-Party-system, being seduced to the diversion of partisan politics, and telling disaffected voters (and understandably disaffected) to S-T-F-U isn’t helping anything.
ant,
Tell your disaffected friends about one-simple-idea.com .
It’s a long shot, but you never know.
Nothing else seems to be working.
Yes, it’s often impossible to know enough about a person to know whether they deserve our vote or not. Perhaps it matters less WHO you vote for, than whether they will be responsible and accountable after being elected. Especially since many pandering politicians are unable to keep all of the promises they make.
And you have to ask yourself: Why are these positions in government so coveted?
Because the candidates want to serve their country and make it better ? HAAaaa !
It’s because it’s a gravy-train. Government is for sale. Big money buys influence. They’re busy voting themselves raises, makin’ secret deals and book deals, and getting rich at our expense, while the problems of the nation go unresolved, problems only grow bigger and bigger (e.g. Social Security, Medicare), and each party blames the other. And when there is some activity in Congress, it’s usually all useless, good-for-nothin’ partisan bickering and stupid games that only serve as a form of entertainment for the truly twisted hacks that love to wallow in it, join the finger-pointing-blame-game crowd, and continually perfect their their technique of looking very busy while actually doing nothing.
And, yes, by all means….contact your politicians. Just don’t be surprised when they don’t do as you’d like. Ask AParker ( Re: Take Action Quickly )
Clayton,
Hmmmm…..let’s see. What can I cut & paste?
To:
One-Simple-Idea.com - for Transparency and Accountability
Much better post this time, not so preachy, it came from the heart…I don’t agree with all of it, but your points had some validity. (and no cut and paste)
Posted by: Clayton at May 19, 2005 06:38 PMHey Adrienne! Thanks for the welcome back. I’ve been working hard. Apparently global competition is catching up with me. I’ve been working 60 hours a week with not a minute to spare for these past many months, so the last thing I want to do when I get home is hop on the computer. But now, things have slowed down and my arms can take a little extra computer time.
I love the idea of a fine for not voting. I’ve always thought we should make it an outrageous tax penalty, like $1,500 for each non-vote that is doubled for every consecutive election missed. First offenses can be dismissed by taking a voter education class. The argument against is weak and selfish. We dispense fines for so many things in this country, why not for the most important component of life in a democracy? Freedom demands eternal vigilance.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 19, 2005 08:28 PMYo, Adrienne,
Ya wanna get married or somethin’ ?
Jus’ kiddin’
I’m already, very happily married.
How about we all sing Kum-ba-ya, and vote some
scum (like Tom Delay) out of office.
Will Delay still get his pen$ion too?
I heard Dan Rostinkowski is still getting his pen$ion, at the tax payers expense, despite spendin’ a few years in prison for defraudin’ the tax payers. Hell of a deal !
Sign me up. I wanna get on this gravy train too !
Posted by: One-Simple-Idea.com - for Transparency and Accountability at May 19, 2005 08:42 PMClayton,
Respectfully, what part do you disagree with?
And why? This is what it’s all about.
Let me know, because it’s important.
Please elaborate.
Thanks!
Posted by: One-Simple-Idea.com - for Transparency and Accountability at May 19, 2005 08:45 PMOK.
I don’t know about some of ya’ll.
but this is a bit of an addiction.
Time for me to get some work done to
pay the bills. I’ve got a contract due
next week.
Adios for a while.
Joseph Briggs:
“I love the idea of a fine for not voting.”
Me too. I think having money taken out their pockets would surely motivate the majority of American’s to turn off the Tee-Vee, hoist their fat bums off the couch, and waddle down to the voting booth. After a while everyone might actually begin think of it the way they do Jury Duty — as a necessary civic duty — but in this case, thankfully minus the horridly stale tuna fish sandwich they always seem to give you for lunch!
I think it’d be nice to give everyone the day off, too. Make it a real holiday.
“I’ve always thought we should make it an outrageous tax penalty, like $1,500 for each non-vote that is doubled for every consecutive election missed. First offenses can be dismissed by taking a voter education class.”
Ouch. That’ll work like a charm!
“The argument against is weak and selfish. We dispense fines for so many things in this country, why not for the most important component of life in a democracy? Freedom demands eternal vigilance.”
I couldn’t agree more.
OSI:
“Yo, Adrienne,
Ya wanna get married or somethin’ ?
Jus’ kiddin’
I’m already, very happily married.”
:^) Congratulations! I’m married too — and also very happily.
“How about we all sing Kum-ba-ya, and vote some
scum (like Tom Delay) out of office.”
Are you kiddin’ OSI? If I thought we could actually get everyone to do that, I might even promise to learn the Sacred Lost Hippie-Art of Macrame!
“Will Delay still get his pen$ion too?”
No doubt he will. And with the way he operates, we shouldn’t put it past him to find a $neaky way to grab a little extra as well…
“I heard Dan Rostinkowski is still getting his pen$ion, at the tax payers expense, despite spendin’ a few years in prison for defraudin’ the tax payers.”
Yeah, I heard about that too.
“Hell of a deal !”
May he burn there for it…
“Sign me up. I wanna get on this gravy train too !”
Personally, I don’t think I could do it — I’d probably never be able to sleep nights if I did what those guys have.
Posted by: Adrienne at May 19, 2005 10:13 PMPutting a fine for not voting is only slightly less evil than a fine for voting (with that tax reimbursement bullshit). The main reason I have for saying this is why should someone who doesn’t care about who becomes president be allowed to cancel out the vote of someone who DOES care? What’s worse, sometimes even when you take the time to keep up with current events, it is only to learn that both candidates should, by no means be allowed to become president and therefore voting for them would be contributing to the evil you condemn.
Basically I feel that people can be put in a pickle sometimes and shouldn’t be punished in such a blanket fashion.
Posted by: Zeek at May 19, 2005 11:50 PMThe best solution for low voter turnout is probably the national referendum. It works at state levels. When a state has an item of concern to the people up for referendum, voter turnout increases significantly.
Maybe we should get some of the stickier items off of Congress’s plate, and onto the voter’s plate.
Then again, the major parties benefit from low voter turnout. Non-voters are much more likely to be fed up with parisan politics, and therefore willing to vote third-party.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 19, 2005 11:58 PM“why should someone who doesn’t care about who becomes president be allowed to cancel out the vote of someone who DOES care?”
Sounds elitist and cynical. The uninformed vote doesn’t cancel out the informed vote. Besides, if you look at it that way, then I have absolutely no reason to vote no matter how informed I am since Utah has consistently been 60+% Republican in, what, every election. That majority always “cancels out” my vote. And there is no assurance that any of them merit the distinction of “informed” voter.
Also, you are overlooking the fact that such a measure would necessarily require other changes to election processes like a “None of the above” choice and run-off elections. I tend to agree with Rob’s speculation. I think such measures would easily bolster the Disaffected Party’s chances at breaking the barely-two-party system we currently have.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 20, 2005 08:06 AMZeek,
I agree with Rob and Joseph — if we fined citizens for not voting, we would undoubtedly see a huge rise in votes for third party candidates — and that could only be a beneficial thing for America. In fact, it might even have the effect of transforming the two major parties — by force them to focus on getting actual results from their policies, rather than let them get away with all the petty partisanship and ineffective bullsh*t they give us now.
Nobody has mentioned it yet, but it might be worth remembering what Joe Stalin once said:
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”
We have ample witness of that fact in our last two major elections.
Posted by: Escobar at May 20, 2005 12:07 PMEscobar,
I’m actually very aware and concerned with that fact (and unfortunately, because I feel that way, I believe many consider me a tin-foil cap-wearer in this blog). I posted this link in another thread within this column, but I’ll put it up here as well, so you can read it:
The GOP’s Attack On Voting Rights
Joseph,
Sounds elitist and cynical. The uninformed vote doesn’t cancel out the informed vote.
I wasn’t talking about the uninformed, hence I did not use the word uninformed… I was talking about people who simply DON’T CARE. The entire rest of your post was a waste of time and energy because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Adrienne,
I agree with Rob and Joseph — if we fined citizens for not voting, we would undoubtedly see a huge rise in votes for third party candidates — and that could only be a beneficial thing for America.
Hm, people who care so little about voting that they have to be FORCED to vote being given sway in their country’s future… somehow that doesn’t strike me as a beneficial thing for America.
Also, you are overlooking the fact that such a measure would necessarily require other changes to election processes like a “None of the above” choice and run-off elections.
What? What am I overlooking? Or maybe it’s just that you’re talking about something different than I am. You can stop talking down to me like I’m an inebriated idiot now.
In fact, it might even have the effect of transforming the two major parties — by force them to focus on getting actual results from their policies, rather than let them get away with all the petty partisanship and ineffective bullsh*t they give us now.
Actually, I think the opposite would happen. If people who simply don’t care are voting, they will be doing so on a whim and the presidential election will be more of a popularity contest than ever (if you can fathom that). More people to persuade only means more lies to tell.
For some reason, Joseph seems convinced that forcing people to vote will strengthen third-parties but we all know that’s a crock. If anything, it will weaken the third parties because people will vote for whoever was advertised the best. More people voting is only a good thing if they are doing so of their own free-will.
Posted by: Zeek at May 20, 2005 04:45 PMWell, Zeek, it’s unfortunate that you can’t understand that regardless of whether the voter is uninformed or uncaring, their vote doesn’t cancel out the vote of anyone else. The idea that it does seems rather cynical. Replacing “uninformed” with “uncaring” and “informed” with “caring” will result in an equally apt comment.
“More people to persuade only means more lies to tell. […] Joseph seems convinced that forcing people to vote will strengthen third-parties but we all know that’s a crock. If anything, it will weaken the third parties because people will vote for whoever was advertised the best.”
And your cynicism seems to know no bounds. I’m glad you think so much of your fellow citizens. I’m sure they appreciate your lack of confidence. That will really make them want to get out and vote, I’m sure.
And to be clear on a few minor points: I never said I was convinced. And no one has yet mentioned being forced to vote. Heh. I’m not forced to get car insurance. I’m not forced to register my car. I’m not forced to get a driver’s license. But I do, because it’s the law and I prefer to be an upstanding citizen free from excessive fines.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 20, 2005 05:32 PMZeek,
If what you say is true, it may be because of a generational gap. You’re young, so maybe that is actually the way your peers feel, but I can tell you from my own experience that people of my own age have told me they don’t vote because they feel it never seems to change anything, rather than because they don’t really care.
Little do they realize that if everyone who felt as they do actually did get out and vote, they could affect plenty of change — by supporting third parties or by actually making the two major parties sit up and start trying to be more effective.
Zeek,
I’m not trying to perpetuate the two party only system. Every election I see at least three or four parties on my ballot. If enough people voted for one of those canidates they would win.
The people I’m talking about are the ones that will tell you that they have never voted and never will then bitch about the people that those that do elect.
To them I still say,
IF YOU DON’T VOTE DON’T BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sometime I wish they would put another box on the ballot. Non of the above
Posted by: Ron Brown at May 21, 2005 11:01 AMJoseph,
I’m glad you think so much of your fellow citizens. I’m sure they appreciate your lack of confidence.
You make it sound as though my cynicism is unjustified.
That will really make them want to get out and vote, I’m sure.
Quite frankly, I’d be happier if they didn’t vote. If you don’t care, don’t pretend like you do.
The idea that it does seems rather cynical. Replacing “uninformed” with “uncaring” and “informed” with “caring” will result in an equally apt comment.
Not really, the uncaring don’t deserve to hold sway in the political system. As such, I fail to see how putting a fine for not voting is in any way, shape, or form, a good thing.
Adrienne,
You’re young, so maybe that is actually the way your peers feel, but I can tell you from my own experience that people of my own age have told me they don’t vote because they feel it never seems to change anything, rather than because they don’t really care.
Ok, so how does the non-voter fine help improve anything? If what you say is true, you’re not punishing the lazy, you’re punishing the forlorn.
Posted by: Zeek at May 21, 2005 01:39 PM“the uncaring don’t deserve to hold sway in the political system.”
Who are you to determine what anyone else deserves? Your attitude is swinging toward pompous and callous. Keep going.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 22, 2005 02:00 PMJoseph,
Who are you to determine what anyone else deserves?
Right back at you. If someone does not want to vote who are you to place a non-voting-fine on them?
Posted by: Zeek at May 22, 2005 10:33 PMZeek~
Isn’t that the truth!It seems many people don’t believe in the freedom to choose! Tax,tax,tax that will cure it all!
The difference is my notion is to empower our democracy toward legitimacy while yours is to allow it to wallow in jaded indifference and call it just. My system would have to be deliberated and approved while yours will just languish in its own smug sense of “freedom.” I am not imposing my idea of what anyone deserves, I’m suggesting my idea of what our democracy deserves. I want all voices to be heard, you want the voices you deem worthy to be heard. As I said, we impose financial burdens on the citizenry for far less important things than participation in our political system but as usual, folks like you are more concerned with principles than with reality. $1,200 a year in mandatory car insurance. $200 in registration (including taxes and inspection). All this and a constitutional guarantee to have free access to all the roads of the nation? We make many compromises to enjoy the life we have in our nation. One more to ensure a real and meaningful democracy would hardly register as a debasement of personal freedom.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 24, 2005 08:58 AMJoseph~
What do you mean “he only wants the voices he deems worthy heard”? What a bunch a bunk- nothing in the above statements says he wants to STOP anyone from voting! He (seems to me, sorry I’m speaking for you) merely isn’t in the buiseness of forcing people at gun point to vote! Ya know that is how Sadaam opperated though- shall we bring oozies to the polls also?
Govt is always the answer to everything isn’t it Zeek?
FORCE people to excercise their right to vote in a country that used to be the land of the FREE.
Instead of dancing around the subject, why don’t you FORCE people answer the man’s questions:
“How would it be right to FORCE someone to vote when that person doesn’t believe there is a viable candidate?”
The problem with your posts Zeek is that you are using common sense and that doesn’t sit well with closedminded people who wish to FORCE you to believe as they do.
Posted by: kctim at May 24, 2005 10:19 AMInteresting, kctim and Traci seem to be siding with me… Not every day that happens! :)
Posted by: Zeek at May 24, 2005 04:48 PMZeek~ Imagine my surprise! I nearly pissed my pants!(I did double check the name on your post a few times!HEEHEE:)
Posted by: Traci at May 24, 2005 06:36 PM“What do you mean “he only wants the voices he deems worthy heard”? “
“the uncaring don’t deserve to hold sway in the political system”
Clear enough?
“He (seems to me, sorry I’m speaking for you) merely isn’t in the buiseness of forcing people at gun point to vote! “
Where did I mention using a gun to force people to vote? What an asinine misrepresentation.
“Instead of dancing around the subject, why don’t you FORCE people answer the man’s questions:
“How would it be right to FORCE someone to vote when that person doesn’t believe there is a viable candidate?”“
You might want to read the thread.
“The problem with your posts Zeek is that you are using common sense and that doesn’t sit well with closedminded people who wish to FORCE you to believe as they do.”
Keep your ad homs out of the discussion.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 25, 2005 09:13 AMJoseph~
The bottom line is that voting has always been a right not a law!
Even if you are crazy enough to believe that we want to STOP people from voting……how does that differ from FORCING people to vote??????
Posted by: Traci at May 25, 2005 10:04 AMJB
I have read the thread and your still dancing.
“Where did I mention using a gun to force people to vote?”
When you mentioned “fining” people for choosing not to vote.
Fines only work when they are enforced. You enforce them by holding people accountable for not paying them.
You do this by arresting them. At gun point.
“Keep your ad homs out of the discussion”
Which part lacks logic or reason?
Your logic says to fine people 1500 for not voting and to double it for each subsequent non-vote.
Your reason is because its for the most important component of life in a democracy.
By not seeing that some people do not think it is worth their time to vote, whether because of the candidates, issues or even because they think their vote doesn’t count, whatever, you are being closed minded.
It is an Americans choice and freedom to vote how they want and IF they want.
By imposing fines and punishing them for choosing not to vote, you are forcing them to believe in the vote as you do.
A non-vote fine is nothing more than a ploy. A ploy to force those who cannot afford such a fine to vote.
Who would it affect the most? Hmmm, maybe those who are dependent on govt for everything. And we all know who they usually vote for.
So, once again, its not actually about helping people or the country, its all about getting more votes for the left.
Posted by: kctim at May 25, 2005 10:10 AM“The problem with your posts Zeek is that you are using common sense and that doesn’t sit well with closedminded people who wish to FORCE you to believe as they do.”Keep your ad homs out of the discussion.
Which part lacks logic or reason?
The part where you don’t address the issue and instead speak to your opinion of me, i.e. lacking common sense, closed-minded and wanting to force beliefs into someone else’s head, as if that were even possible. Of course, you direct these assessments toward “people” and not me specifically, but your insinuation is clear and it still doesn’t argue the facts of the issue.
Fines only work when they are enforced. You enforce them by holding people accountable for not paying them. You do this by arresting them. At gun point.
What country do you live in? The IRS hunts down tax evaders with guns? We have debtors prisons? Wow, I’ve been away much too long.
Your logic says to fine people 1500 for not voting and to double it for each subsequent non-vote.
Not double for subsequent, double for consecutive. 1500 is a figure off the top of my head. It isn’t an actual proposal. And to note: I’m not trying to force anything on anyone. This specious notion of mine is to spur debate on what can be done to prevent 20-some percent of the nation determining its national leadership.
A non-vote fine is nothing more than a ploy. A ploy to force those who cannot afford such a fine to vote. Who would it affect the most? Hmmm, maybe those who are dependent on govt for everything. And we all know who they usually vote for.
Are you just bitter that Republicans don’t appeal to the poor? You know, Republicans are as free to court the poor vote as any party. Or are the poor just not welcome in the Big Tent? So is your opposition to mandatory voting based on your prejudices against the poor? Is it just a ploy to keep them out of the system?
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 25, 2005 04:10 PMJOSEPH~
NO ONE- I REPEAT- NO ONE IS KEEPING ANYONE FROM THE POLLS…..THEY KEEP THEMSELVES FROM THE POLLS……WHY CAN YOU NOT GRASP THAT? I KNOW A GREAT MANY THAT DID NOT VOTE AND IF YOU ASKED THEM IF THE REPUBLICANS STOPPED THEM THEY WOULD BE INSULTED!!
Posted by: Traci at May 25, 2005 04:34 PMJB
“your insinuation is clear and it still doesn’t argue the facts of the issue.”
Thats because you refuse to see the facts. Forcing people to vote is as wrong as forcing people to attend church.
Before you know it, the govt and its special interest groups would be telling people where and if they could smoke, what to eat and that they had to wear seatbelts even though it may hamper their driving(Traci:) ability.
Oh wait, too late cause that already happens. So much for freedom of choice over ones self.
“Wow, I’ve been away much too long.”
How would you collect these fines? If I had no fear of arrest, why would I pay them?
Some IRS agents are authorized to be armed.
“This specious notion of mine is to spur debate”
I am aware of this JB and I thought we were debating it. I also know the 1500 was just a number you threw out there. But even if it was just 1 dollar, forcing people to vote is wrong.
“Are you just bitter that Republicans don’t appeal to the poor?”
I’m not bitter at all and I’m hardly a Republican.
“Is it just a ploy to keep them out of the system?”
Na, liberals do that on their own by keeping the poor dependent on govt.
Posted by: kctim at May 25, 2005 04:51 PMForcing people to vote is as wrong as forcing people to attend church.
The analogy is flawed. Despite fundie claims, the effective management of our nation is not dependent on church attendance. More voters by way of mandate may or may not lead to effective management but at least there would be more competition for a larger number of diverse voters. This would spur policy innovation and stronger debate. There is no social or political incentive to force people to go to church.
Before you know it, the govt and its special interest groups would be telling people where and if they could smoke, what to eat and that they had to wear seatbelts even though it may hamper their driving(Traci:) ability. Oh wait, too late cause that already happens. So much for freedom of choice over ones self.
Right, and since most of the country accepts these regulations as justifiable incursions upon our personal liberty, I see no compelling counter-argument to a similar mandate for voting, especially comparing the scope of the issues involved. I understand your desire for complete personal freedom but until the Controlled Substances Act is repealed, I won’t believe that the rest of the country is similarly inclined.
How would you collect these fines? If I had no fear of arrest, why would I pay them?
The IRS, like most organizations that require stripping money from individuals, relies on the basic principle that most people prefer to pay their debts. If you look into the statistics on tax cheats, you will find that the number is quite low. This isn’t because people fear the IRS raiding their homes guns ablazing. (BTW, when IRS agents are fitted with guns, it’s not for collecting from average individuals. Average individuals are usually sent a collection letter.) If such a system of tax “incentive” (heh) to vote is implemented, it would have been deliberated and approved, thus credibly legitimate, which would impel most to simply calculate the payment into their finances, or just vote. The IRS and any method of debt collection can’t work on threat of prison. Prison prevents repayment of debt. The threat is lack of access to credit other financing benefits. Also, despite the large amount I suggested at first, the actual amount, were this a real debate on real legislation, would likely be calculated according to income.
“Are you just bitter that Republicans don’t appeal to the poor?”I’m not bitter at all and I’m hardly a Republican.
Wasn’t saying you were Republican. Just wondering why you might begrudge an effort that may end up benefitting Democrats.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 25, 2005 07:03 PMJoseph,
It’s not about me deeming people worthy or unworthy, I just don’t see why you want to make someone who doesn’t care about elections vote. If that sort of voting doesn’t seem arbitrary to you… well, I don’t know what would.
I think I should just say that if you’re so desperate for voters that you have to begin taxing the non-voters, there’s already something severly wrong with the country that needs to be fixed first.
Posted by: Zeek at May 25, 2005 11:50 PMIf that sort of voting doesn’t seem arbitrary to you… well, I don’t know what would.
The first few times, maybe. This wouldn’t be a one-time thing, though. It’s a statistical gambit that such a measure would eventually produce more votes for more meaningful candidates advocating innovative and applicable policy.
I think I should just say that if you’re so desperate for voters that you have to begin taxing the non-voters, there’s already something severly wrong with the country that needs to be fixed first.
This is obviously the case. There are severe problems with the country and it would be more efficient to fix them first. But how would the country get there with the status quo? When has the status quo ever fixed anything? A disturbing number of our representatives appear much more concerned with fatuous issues like steroids in baseball, preserving humans in vegetative states, preserving the sanctity of blastocyst, what tie to wear when making particular points, whether we should have an asshole or a diplomat represent us in the UN, forcing PBS and NPR to represent more conservative perspectives, et cetera, et cetera. The best example is the Texas rep actually writing and proposing legislation to ban sexually suggestive maneuvers in high school cheerleading. Occasionally, they pay casual lip service to pressing social issues but due to their inherent character flaws the country ends up getting strapped with impotent, if not detrimental, legislation, like No Child Left Behind, the Clean Air Act, and the prescription drug benefits program for Medicare.
I appreciate Thomas Jefferson’s warning that freedom demands eternal vigilance. I seriously doubt he meant freedom demands eternal vigilance when it fits into our schedule and isn’t too inconvenient. We’re talking about a hour or so of our time one day every other year (in general). We’re not talking about conscription into some intolerable regimen. It’s not a monthly fee. It requires extremely little paperwork for the end user. It is far less of an imposition than almost every other federally mandated behavior.
And I’ve yet to hear any potential downside. Saying, “it’s just wrong,” is not a downside. Speculating that the votes would be arbitrary and poorly-thought is not a downside. Maybe the election process would occasionally get more convoluted (like when None of the Above wins out) but this would only lead to more appropriate and legitimate representation in the end. The only real downside is for those invested in the status quo.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 26, 2005 08:51 AMJB
“the effective management of our nation is not dependent on church attendance”
To you and I, you are quite correct. But, from chruches in the inner city to rural townships, very familiar phrases go something like this:
- Going to church makes you a better person.
- You should vote for him/her because he/she is a god fearing person.
Dependent on church attendance? No. But many people believe it is.
“I understand your desire for complete personal freedom but until the Controlled Substances Act is repealed, I won’t believe that the rest of the country is similarly inclined.”
The rest of the country? How does the rest of the country have any right to make personal freedom choices for everybody?
Your statement makes it sound like as long as the rest of the country agree’s, losing personal liberties is fine.
I don’t think gay marriage proponents would agree.
You are speaking of a democracy, majority rules. We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic where individual freedoms are protected.
“The IRS and any method of debt collection can’t work on threat of prison”
Mr. Briggs, please ask anyone if they would pay taxes if it was voluntary. The majority will say no or some. Then ask them why they pay taxes now. The majority will say, because they have to or they will go to jail or lose everything they own.
The threat used to enforce these illegal tax collections is that of jail or poverty.
“Just wondering why you might begrudge an effort that may end up benefitting Democrats.”
Simply because I believe in benefitting the people, not a particular party.
If we keep stripping away a persons freedom of individual choice, sooner or later, all of our freedoms will be gone.
Joseph Briggs,
But how would the country get there with the status quo? When has the status quo ever fixed anything?
Well, since when have people who are apathetic been any better? Sure, the status quo isn’t fixing anything, but I don’t see how the non-voters will be able to fix anything either…
I appreciate Thomas Jefferson’s warning that freedom demands eternal vigilance.
Taxing people into voting is not making them vigilant. Remember when I said “people who don’t care don’t deserve to hold sway in the government?” This quote pretty much supports that. If they wanted to ensure their freedoms they would be more vigilant, more caring. To hand them their rights on a platter is, as I said, overly generous.
Posted by: Zeek at May 26, 2005 10:21 PMZeek,
since when have people who are apathetic been any better? Sure, the status quo isn’t fixing anything, but I don’t see how the non-voters will be able to fix anything either…
Failure of imagination is no excuse and hardly a counter-argument. By voting, they will no longer be non-participatory. You presume they will remain indifferent. I don’t. My speculation presumes that once active, a statistically significant number of people will rise to their responsibilities. Your speculation presumes people are simply too gullible and lazy. My notion seeks to solve a problem. Yours ignores it. The point isn’t who is right, the point is which notion has a better chance of solving the problem. Despite your pessimism, a no-vote fine has a chance greater than zero. Yours is zero.
To hand them their rights on a platter is, as I said, overly generous.
Your contempt for the non-voter is telling.
kctim,
How does the rest of the country have any right to make personal freedom choices for everybody?
This is a question of political philosophy. I’ve been pointing out real and accepted practice and comparing it to a fine for not voting.
Your statement makes it sound like as long as the rest of the country agree’s, losing personal liberties is fine.You make it sound like regulations like the speed limit are some egregious violation of our personal liberty. Losing personal liberties is not fine but our country has a long history of restricting them to a limited degree when deemed appropriate. You keep over-exaggerating the impact such a fine would have while ignoring the fact that it is far less of a burden than any other regulation of personal liberty. This is no melodrama of the state enslaving the people to some immoral ends.
I don’t think gay marriage proponents would agree.
Straw man. Gay marriage is about equal protection. A no-vote penalty would not violate this.
Just wondering why you might begrudge an effort that may end up benefitting Democrats.Simply because I believe in benefitting the people, not a particular party.
Like I said, the Republicans are free to court the poor vote, too. Your speculation that it might help the Democrats is incidental to the fact that the Republicans do not appeal to the poor. When all voices are heard, how is this adverse to the people? It’s only unfavorable to those who don’t want all voices to be heard.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at May 27, 2005 08:36 AMSpeed limit? You make a choice on whether to drive or not. You can not be fined for speeding if you choose NOT to drive.
“Gay marriage is about equal protection. A no-vote penalty would not violate this.”
Yes it does. Calling straw man = cop out.
You should be able to marry who you choose and you should be able to vote by choice.
“When all voices are heard, how is this adverse to the people?”
This is the heart of the arguement.
Uninformed people who are forced to vote will never be heard. They will be nothing but sheep and will only vote for whoever panders to them best.
“the fact that the Republicans do not appeal to the poor”
If it wouldnt help the Dem’s then you wouldn’t be talking about it.
I could have easily said that we should only fine the people who work and are willing to take care of themselves because more of them vote Republican.
I said what I said because to you its about getting more votes for your side.
In reality, its about a persons freedom to choose to vote or not and that person, as an American, should be able to make that choice on their own without threat of punishment.
Go ahead and let them do their tax……I’m positive this will just piss off the people it will effect and they will remember who’s idea it was at the polls…….can I hear BACKFIRE????
Posted by: Traci at May 27, 2005 11:35 AM
