Third Party & Independents: Archives

While I disagree that felons should not be allowed to vote, and find this to be unconstitutional, in my opinion, I also find “competency testing” a false issue.

Voting is an inalienable right, in my opinion, or more precisely, self determination of governance. Even a complete an utter idiot may be better able to tell when he is being screwed than the most erudite voter around.

I agree education about issues is needed and many, supposedly educated folks simply have no depth, awareness or basic understanding of many issues. That’s a part of what politicking is all about, in my opinion.

Posted by: googlumpus at April 29, 2008 03:20 AM

“Ignorant and Uneducated Rights” or straw man rights? I always use a picture ID to vote, it’s part of motor voter. Even the teenagers here have a picture ID in high school. Employeers also issue picture IDs. I don’t get how this is even an issue. Forcing people to learn things that have no use in their life, except on election days, is pointless. Literacy tests were in disrepute because different tests were given to different people, which was the whole point anyway.

We have 1 per cent of the population in jails and prison, more than anyplace else on earth. People should have a right to vote against those who made some of the laws that put them there.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 29, 2008 07:59 AM

I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a person to show an understanding of how our government works before they are allowed to vote. A basic civics exam should be required. I find nowhere in the constitution where you are given the right to vote for president, only equal protection for people who are allowed by their states to vote. I would go further than David if possible and only allow people who pay taxes to vote. I hear the cries of “poll tax” echoing already, but I think that if you don’t support your government, you shouldn’t have a say in how it’s run.

Posted by: BOHICA at April 29, 2008 08:11 AM

David -
Our founders also understood that self-interest would govern the governing. They implemented checks and balances because they did not trust the leaders elected by any electorate to be enlightened and unselfish. This insight into human depravity was vital to the survival of the Republic.

They could have extended the same principal to the voters. When did we begin to see illiteracy eradicated? Not until the illiterate could vote. Did educated, literate, well-schooled White voters decide to provide equal services to Black communities? Not until Blacks could vote.

Suffrage creates an admittedly rough measure of accountability for the governing - but this is far better than no measure.

Posted by: Chops at April 29, 2008 10:09 AM

I need to fall back on the tired old quotation that democracy is the worst possible system, except for everything else.

Ignorance of voters is a problem. A good book called The Myth of the Rational Voter indicates a SYSTEMATIC bias among voters. One of the biggest sources of this bias, however, is too much faith in efficacy of government solutions. In many ways those most enthusiastic about government and most likely to want to take part are the sources of the trouble. Voter education would probably be championed and run by these kids of people and in their good intentions they would muck it up even more.

The biggest reason people are dissatisfied with government is that they are asking it to do too much for them and asking it to do things beyond its ability. Politicians have learned that by promising more to the credulous voters, they can ensure their continued power. This has been recognized as the weakness of democracy since ancient times. Politicians can essentially bribe the electorate by promising to take money from somebody else. Even if they are usually bribing people with their own money, the trick still works. Everybody ends up taking some government programs and even if the sum total is less than they could have obtained with their own resources, it seems like government is generous.

So the problem really is NOT that voters are dumb or ignorant. The problem is that the system sets up a sort of tragedy of the commons. Everybody is rationally acting to protect and enhance the things he/she considers good or beneficial, but since politics is a zero – actually a negative – sum game the total good is actually diminished the more political solutions are used.

I agree that it is reasonable to ask for ID. That is the least we can do. I think it is also reasonable to ask people to take the time to register to vote (Motor voter is a not a good thing) and figure out how to do it. If a voter cannot find the polling place, or figure out how to cast his ballot, the smart/stupid test has eliminated his vote, at least this time. But I cannot think of any formal educational process or test that would not be hopelessly biased, unfair, manipulated or all these things at the same time.

The best bet is to limit the reach of politics to those things appropriate and rely on ourselves, our families, NGOs, churches, charities and all the other things that are not government for the bulk of our needs and wants.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2008 10:35 AM

Whether testing is ever required or not, education (including voter education) is a important goal to pursue.

In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.
The voters have a choice of how they can get their eduction:

(a) the smart, peaceful, educated way

(b) Or, the hard and painful way,

(c) Or some of both.

There is no doubt that voters need voter education.

Voting seems very simple, but there is actually some voting strategies that are often ignored or unknown to many (if not most) voters.

For example, many voters may stay home becaues they don’t like any of the presidential candidates for 4-NOV-2008.

However, that totally ignores Congress.
Regardless of who the next president is, voters should try not to saddle the next president with too many irresponsible incumbent politicians in Congress. And the problem is not merely Republican or Democrat politicians. There are too many irresponsible incumbent politicians in BOTH parties.

For another example, if a voter doesn’t like any of the candidates, not voting at all is not the solution.
At the very least, vote out the incumbent, rather than let that incumbent become more powerful, dangerous, and difficult to unseat from their cu$hy, coveted seat of power.

For those that question the irresponsibility and dysfunction of Congress, would they please provide us a list of 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, or at least 268 (half of the 535) in Congress that are not irresponible, don’t vote on pork-barrel and waste, don’t look the other way (i.e. that are adequately responsible and accountable). Unless there are at least 268 on that list, what does that tell you about Congress? Look at their voting records (OnTheIssues.org). What’s abundantly clear is that far too many in Congress are irresponsbile and unaccountable, and the voters are culpable too. While our U.S. troops were risking life and limb in Iraq for nation-building and policing a civil war, Congress was voting itself a raise in the last 9 of 10 years. Cha-ching! Yet, voters throw more money at them every election. And little do the majority of Americans know that 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny and wealthy 0.15% of all voters that make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more).

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2008 11:45 AM

The voters themselves, specifically those who would never read an article like this, vote for candidates, yet allow ignorance and disinterest to dominate their political perspective between elections, relying on their Party to tell them how good or bad their politicians have performed.

Sorry, but I don’t believe that it’s only the “ignorant” voters that elect these politicians. There are many highly educated people that only vote the party line, regardless. There are also many “ignorant” folks who have more common sense in their little fingers than these supposedly educated partisan voters. I guess it depends on your definition of ignorance.

There are many people who are very savvy, yet not “educated” enough to pass a test. I know a few of them. Some of the smartest people I know have the least eduation. That’s the problem with these measurements by tests. They only measure education, not common sense, and do it poorly.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 29, 2008 11:47 AM

One thing is for certain: Repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates isn’t working.
Congress has done nothing in 30 years to stop these 10 abuses, which are hammering most Americans and causing the continued deterioration of these 17+ economic conditions, which have never been worse ever, and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2008 11:52 AM

Jack said: “The biggest reason people are dissatisfied with government is that they are asking it to do too much for them and asking it to do things beyond its ability.”

Yeah, right, Jack. Like Iraq, preventing 9/11, rebuilding New Orleans, preventing the Savings and Loan debacle and this Mortgage based economic meltdown created by LACK of oversight, rampant greed and corruption, and ignornance.

Let’s see, this short list comprises War, national defense, natural catastrophe, white collar crime, and management of the economy. All things our government has no business being involved in, right, Jack?

Wrong! Just because your Party and politicians you voted for demonstrated a complete incompetence at the helm of government does not mean government is a bad idea or cannot be run well. Good government begins with good management and in a democracy that means good voters, informed, rational, motivated, and interested, and willing in a heartbeat to eject politicians who are incompetent, corrupt, or just plain ineffective.

Two ways to deal with this. Improve the management of this democracy or chuck it altogether. Because the way we are going now, it is going to self-destruct under the weight of the Peter Principle.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 12:00 PM

I think you are all a little off track, but a little on track here.

I have no problem whatsoever with asking for a picture ID at the polling places, as we must make sure those that vote are indeed who they say they are.

However, I feel that an “education” test is no guarantee that the electorate will vote in an informed way.

What will they consider instead of readily available information?

1.) Race. What percentage will consider skin color as a primary factor in their decision for whom to vote? Who will vote for Obama simply because he has black skin? Who will vote for Hillary or McCain simply because they have white skin?

2.) Sex. Who will vote for Hillary simply because she is an estrogen enhanced carbon based unit? Who will vote for McCain or Obama simply because they are testosterone enhanced carbon based units?

3.) Charisma. Who will ignore education to vote for someone “simply because they LIKE them”…or vote against someone “simply because they DO NOT like them”?

4.) The “get on the bandwagon” effect. No matter what your information tells you, your friends, your family, the people at work, etc., drum up excitement about one candidate and the individual voter goes along. Why? Everybody LOVES a winner, and all those in your personal circle are convinced (and by extension…you) that they’re (you’re) backing a winnner.

So no matter the level of education or absorption of information, there are variables that transcend logic, information, intelligence and common “horse” sense.

Giving individuals a test of knowledge of our electorial process past and present achieves very little.

Posted by: Jim T at April 29, 2008 12:05 PM

womanmarine said: “Sorry, but I don’t believe that it’s only the “ignorant” voters that elect these politicians. There are many highly educated people that only vote the party line, regardless. There are also many “ignorant” folks who have more common sense in their little fingers than these supposedly educated partisan voters. I guess it depends on your definition of ignorance.”

Government is not religion, and should not be about faith or belief, but, fact and information and rational assessment. Ignorance as I define it here, is the willful act of ignoring that which is pertinent and relevant to one’s tasks. I agree, there are many a degreed individual who votes ignorantly. Being specialists themselves, they leave government to specialists whom they choose by party. Huge MISTAKE!

The founding fathers intended voters to be generalists, having general knowledge and information about the purposes and workings of government, to be personally vested in the actions of their politicians, and be sufficiently self-interested and rational to be willing to throw politicians out of office without regard for Party, when they act contrary to the interests of the voter. In our current system, no matter how bad government gets, more than 92% of incumbents are reelected.

Its broke, womanmarine. And ignorance by the high school and college educated is the root of the problem. Ignorance of politics, ignorance of what politicians do and how they vote between elections, ignorance of the consequences of voting for Party instead of individuals. Parties are NOT about good governance, today, they are about marketing, advertising, fund raising, winning races, and paying back patronage with favors from office. Those are political parties primary goals and objectives. Hence, political parties are far too often the very wrong place to look for candidates to become good governors. Political Parties will give you PR Election race winners with name recognition and money ties. Neither is a prerequisite to good governance.

Common sense? Common sense is the offspring of mother quicksand. Common sense says Barack Obama is a Muslim with sympathies for al-Queda. Common sense gave us GW Bush. Common sense says as long as American employers are getting fat, everything else will take care of itself.

There is no such thing as common sense without common education and common exposure to factual data and information. Which is why a nation must have common education if it is to have any measure of common sense. Note that I said, common education, not common misinformation. Politicians know all to well how pliable the concept of common sense can make the electorate. They spend a billion dollars an election cycle shaping people’s so called, ‘common sense’, which mostly amounts to little more than common misinformation and deception.

One can be entirely logical and entirely factually wrong at the same time. Common sense does have a real meaning aside from the one of convenience so often bantered about these days. Adam Smith, author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments dedicated an entire book to the theme of common sense. You might want to try reading it before tossing that term around so loosely and carelessly in such a modern ‘common sensical’ fashion.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 12:25 PM

Jim T said: “However, I feel that an “education” test is no guarantee that the electorate will vote in an informed way.”

Quite true. But, it will improve the odds considerably. Just like insider information improves one’s odds of profitable investments. It is no guarantee, but, can be generally counted on over the long term to increase one’s fortunes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 12:29 PM

Jim T said: “Giving individuals a test of knowledge of our electorial process past and present achieves very little.”

Then you believe the Founders were wrong to limit the vote to only white, male, landowners, as a strategy to attempt to place democracy in the hands of the more likely literate, intelligent, and motivated by self-interest?

I of course, then, would disagree with you entirely. The Founders chose the wisest course, for their time, to insure democracy was put in the hands of those most capable of holding politicians accountable and responsible.

Today, with a 92% minimum reelection rate, universal suffrage holds almost no politicians accountable or responsible in federal government. There is no way to get around the facts. 81% of the electorate believe our nation is headed in the wrong direction, (very perceptive), but, that same electorate will reelect more than 90% of politicians responsible for that wrong direction.

There is a gross logical disconnect here. Quite simply, it rests with the voters, as the research demonstrates that the majority of voters believe it is NOT their representatives, but, everyone else’s who is responsible for bad government. Thus the incumbent reelection rate remains over 90% and the country continues down the wrong path according to voters. I call that ignorance, and evidence of a severe lack of education about our political system and how it affects governance at the federal level.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 12:40 PM

David:

So you disagree with my use of common sense. We can agree to disagree on the terms. Perhaps intuition or judgement are better terms? Whatever you call it is not measurable by a test. As you yourself have posted, education does not guarantee voter interest nor use of their intellect in decision making for voting purposes.

It also makes me feel that this and other posts along this line are simply because they (the referenced “ignorant” voters) don’t vote the way you and others think they should. It’s a very elitist attitude that voters should vote the way anyone thinks they should, or to judge those that vote different than this VOID premise. To imply ignorance or disinterest to anyone is to judge them based on things you cannot possibly know about them.

JMHO of course.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 29, 2008 12:59 PM

The current endless election cycle proves that educated people can follow a cult of personality even better than the most ignorant people in the world. Advocating a more informed electorate sounds more like hoping that more people will vote with the snobs.

Jack, people are capable of making a market based decision in an election, and when taxes are an issue, usually vote against them if they feel that they are unnecessary and burdensome. In this election, debt will be more of an issue.

“rely on ourselves, our families, NGOs, churches, charities and all the other things that are not government for the bulk of our needs and wants”, including your salary, or are you exempt from this rule that you repeat so often? I actually work for all of the above mentioned, but am paying taxes to support welfare cheats like those profiteering off the war in Iraq, the oil companies, and any other interests that can get the government to print money up and throw it in their direction, while adding it to the national debt.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 29, 2008 01:03 PM

The problem with voting, like so many other things, boils down to some basic human traits (which includes ignorance), with a little over-lap:

• (1) apathy, complacency, sense of futility, negligence, ignorance, and laziness;


• (2) greed, selfishness, gluttony, lust for power and control, envy, pride, and exploitation of others and things (e.g. lawlessness, wealth, usury, wars, taxation, etc.);


• (3) irrational fear, fear mongering, anger, intolerance, hatred, prejudice of others and things (e.g. religion, race, gender, color, ethnicity, etc.);


• (4) delusion (deception and self deception), misplaced loyalties, partisan-warfare, misplaced compassion, misplaced priorities;

The key to part of the solution to the problem is education (something that isn’t helped by 25% (or more) of Americans are not graduating from high school.
Education can help substitute for a lack of virtue, since logic helps us make better decisions based on learning from history and past mistakes.
The biggest lesson for American voters to learn and understand is that they are culpable too, and the largest group (200 million eligible voters) responsible for their own condition.

And if too many voters continue to crap in their own nest, those voters should not be suprised when the branch it all rests upon finally collapses.

With so many economic conditions now worse than ever, and/or since the 1930s and 1940s, a continued deterioration (or worse) is not far fetched.

Here’s just one question to ponder:

• ? Where will the money come from to pay the interest on the current $53.2 Trillion in total nation-wide debt (3.81 times the $13.86 Trillion GDP), much less the money to pay the principal (LOAN = PRINCIPAL + INTEREST), when that money does not yet exist?

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters elect, and deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2008 01:10 PM

We have the electorate we deserve.
When students are no longer required to take and pass Civics, US History, State History, and pass a test on both the US Constitution and the Constitution of the state they live in, just how can they be expected to be informed enough in the process of government to make informed decisions?We have allowed our schools to quit teaching these subjects and we now have voters that don’t have the slightest idea of why we even hold elections. Much less the importance of making an informed decision on who to vote for.
A teacher friend of mine at our high school recently asked his students why we hold Presidential elections every four years. Some of the answers would amaze ya.
1. We need a new President every four years because the old one gets tired.
2. So the President can get a pay raise.
3. Because the Government wants to spend more money.
4. Because the other party wants a chance to have a President.
5. Because Bush is stupid and needs to be kicked out of office.
6. Because the courts say so.
7. So each state can have someone from it in the White House.
8. So the Vice President can be President.
And my personal favorite.
9. To make sure Congress appoints the right person from the majority party as President.
Of course not every student came up with answers like these. Fortunately there were a lot that knew the reason. But that even one would come up with these answers is completely unacceptable.
How can ya expect an informed electorate when kids aint even taught the basic concepts of our government?

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 29, 2008 01:11 PM

Chops said: “They could have extended the same principal to the voters. When did we begin to see illiteracy eradicated?”

Functional Illiteracy has never been eradicated in America, Chops. Check out the stats on this topic. Functional illiteracy is still quite prevalent in America and always has been.

Thus, your argument completely falls flat that the white literates effected Black suffrage. The civil rights movement was not led by WHITE LITERATES, Chops, it was led by Black Literates. White Literates were forced by their own humanity at watching the treatment of Blacks on their Black and White TV screens to see the truth of Black American’s plight in the South in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Remember that only a minimum of literacy or none is required to absorb information from TV pictures. A picture can be worth a thousand words. And during the Civil Rights movement, there were thousands of pictures.

Of course, most politicians would secretly love voters to be functionally illiterate with the written word, making them susceptible to campaign rhetoric in the medium of politician’s choice, TV. It is no surprise then, is it, when we learn that so many young voters get their political news from the Colbert Report or the Bill Maher show, or Limbaugh and Hannity. No reading or analysis required, no logic necessary other than that which the speaker provides. Logic can be entirely intact and completely wrong at the same time. No one knows this better than political spinners.

If Gremlins in gasoline consume gasoline, and if when compressed, they fart copiously, and if their farts are explosive when exposed to a spark, then what we pump into our cars is Gremlin loaded gasoline. We can also deduce that these Gremlins tolerate very high temperatures without alteration of anatomy or physiology, since they are not destroyed by the combustion.

Logic can be intact, and entirely wrong if one or more of its premises is factually wrong. Replace Gremlins with hydrocarbons, and farts with compressed gas-air mixture, and the logic remains intact, with the result of a conclusion that is also true and verifiable, instead of false and unverifiable.

Many a functionally illiterate person is capable of intact logic. Humans are predisposed to logical thought construction if exposed to a normal human world and language in their early years. But, logical does not mean correct. What we often refer to as common sense is nothing more than an ability for logic. But, logic is no guarantor of correct or effective conclusions. The thinking of Adolph Hitler, as evidenced by his speeches, were mostly very logical. His conclusions however, and therefore his premises, were demonstrably in error. But, then, what would one expect from a frustrated painter elevated to leader of a militaristic nation. He was elevated to his level of incompetence, and the Peter Principle took over from there.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 01:15 PM

womanmarine said: “It also makes me feel that this and other posts along this line are simply because they (the referenced “ignorant” voters) don’t vote the way you and others think they should.”

Well, I have no control over your feelings. But, I clearly define ignorant as the willful avoidance of relevant and pertinent information needed to perform a given task responsibly (with the ability to respond appropriately to the task). And my definition of uneducated is very straight forward, not educated in civics, politics, history, and some measure of law at least incorporating a reading of the Founding documents with average comprehension.

Your implication that I seek for the ignorant to vote as I do, is a slick piece of deception. I have made it obvious that what I seek is for voters to hold politicians responsible and accountable for governance results at election time. Nothing more. It is illogical and frankly, the height of laziness for voters to complain about the direction of the country while voting their same representatives back into office term after term after term.

I propose that better education in history, civics, and current political events would lead to greater accountability demanded of politicians of any and all parties at election time. Appears to be a valid argument to me. And one which conforms to the intentions of the Founding Fathers a great many of whom feared elected officers who could not or would not be held to account by their voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 01:32 PM

But, I clearly define ignorant as the willful avoidance of relevant and pertinent information

Okay, how the hell do you, or anyone, know?

Posted by: womanmarine at April 29, 2008 01:36 PM

Your implication that I seek for the ignorant to vote as I do, is a slick piece of deception. I have made it obvious that what I seek is for voters to hold politicians responsible and accountable for governance results at election time.

And you know that they don’t, again, how? Because they re-elect folks you don’t like and they should follow the VOID premise?

Sorry, no deception, except in your opinion. I’m pretty straightforward and frank.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 29, 2008 01:38 PM

David

I don’t think we could have prevented 9/11 based on what we knew before. It is one of those unexpected events. They happen because they are … unexpected. Before they happen, nobody takes it seriously. Had we arrested the 9/11 highjackers on 8/11, they would be “victims”. It would have been nearly impossible to convict them of anything and lefties all over the world would accuse of overacting. After they happen, it is easy to see what went wrong, what we shoulda/woulda/coulda done, and we make very specific adaptations. I can guarantee you that nobody will ever again highjack airplanes using box cutters and fly them into airplanes. Whatever happens next will be … unexpected.

We have since avoided the much expected second and third attacks, although we have become a bit complacent want now are not allowing adequate surveillance of foreign terrorists. We now no longer expect the next attack and attribute its absence to luck or the forbearance of the terrorists, not likely BTW.
Re New Orleans – do you want to rebuild it? The parts that are above sea level are mostly rebuilt already. The rest should probably return to nature, especially if you consider global warming and sea level rises a probability. The authorities should have reacted faster and better to the initial tragedy, but with the incompetent local authorities it was hard for the Feds to get involved. Rebuilding the low lying areas of New Orleans is NOT a government responsibility, IMO. I would just say no.

Re Mortgages – what percentage of homes have actually defaulted? We did lower credit standards too much. This was done, BTW, with the active support of politicians on both sides, Dems rather more than Republicans. Politicians are always clamoring to push loans to poor people and people who are poor credit risks. Surprise. Poor credit risks are … poor credit risks. It is actually government actions that caused this to become a crisis in the first place and in the particular situation government (the Fed etc) is doing a decent job in getting us out. Remember the S&L crash? Most people don’t. This will be similar.

No government has been able to repeal the law of supply and demand and none has been able to make cycles in business, homes, weather etc illegal.

Besides all this, given the tone of your posts, advocating more government sure seems to be the triumph of hope over experience. Can you recall a time when government really worked well? Actually it has often met my standards, but I cannot think of any time or place where it would meet yours. Maybe Singapore. It has a system where the dumber people don’t have much of say and it works reasonably well.

RE common education – like what? Have you seen public school history texts lately? They are the product not of truth seeking but rather of protracted negotiations among interest groups to make sure everybody is portrayed as good and above average and/or victimized and in need of compensation. Nobody really believes this is good education, but it is the best we can do with our “common education.”

RE Hitler logic – yes. Logic is merely a tool. Grant the premises and you can logically “prove” almost anything. I used to like the Spock character in Star Trek. He was always logical and make silly but precise statements, such as “impact in 5.4 seconds”. Now I see that was childish and misinformed re logic, knowledge and judgment.

BTW – Picard rules.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2008 01:40 PM

BOHICA said: “I would go further than David if possible and only allow people who pay taxes to vote.”

That is certainly further that I would go. That results in a bias toward the employed, leaving the unemployed and poor without representation at the ballot box.

When I graduated from college, I was abjectly poor, and verging on bankruptcy, and unemployed. Having paid no taxes that year should NOT have deprived me of a vote. It was in part the politician’s mismanagement I could not acquire employment with my new degree from college. The economy was still trying to recover from the S&L crisis and stagflation while over, was something the economy was still trying to elevate itself from.

With my degree in psychology I was finally able to get a job in Arts Management - go figure! I was voting against the incumbents then, and I will be voting against them again.

It is in my own self-interest to vote against the way things are heading in this country (which means voting for challengers instead of incumbents) what with the oil crisis, banking and mortgage debacle, credit bubble looming, endless war in Iraq at outrageous costs for decades, and of course for the most important reason of all, my daughter’s future as an American citizen who will have to shoulder the debt and mismanagement of politicians of my generation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 01:45 PM

I said:

“However, I feel that an “education” test is no guarantee that the electorate will vote in an informed way.”

To which David replied:

“Quite true. But, it will improve the odds considerably.”

One can only hope. But do remember that the betterment of an individual rarely effects the dynamic of the “mob” or the “dumb masses” (say it quickly for full effect!). :-)

I said:

“Giving individuals a test of knowledge of our electorial process past and present achieves very little.”

To which David replied”

“Then you believe the Founders were wrong to limit the vote to only white, male, landowners, as a strategy to attempt to place democracy in the hands of the more likely literate, intelligent, and motivated by self-interest?

I of course, then, would disagree with you entirely.”

Do let me amend my statement with the amendment in bold type…

“Giving individuals in today’s world a test of knowledge of our electorial process past and present achieves very little.”

Except for a lawsuit from the ACLU. Look, as far back as I can remember elections (that would be Eisenhour), they have been nothing more than a beauty contest anyway. Remember that Nixon lost to Kennedy because of the unpardonable sin of “looking bad” on TV.

Educating the electorate is a noble goal. But I fear for too many people raging apathy and willful ignorance are the order of the day. Their attitude is that of the Who who said it best…

“Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss.”

A 92% re-election rate is indicative to me of this attitude.

Posted by: Jim T at April 29, 2008 01:46 PM

googlumpus said: “Even a complete an utter idiot may be better able to tell when he is being screwed than the most erudite voter around.”

But, not nearly as prepared to effectively do something to change the situation around.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 01:53 PM

Jack wrote: I don’t think we could have prevented 9/11 based on what we knew before. It is one of those unexpected events. They happen because they are … unexpected. Before they happen, nobody takes it seriously.

Baloney.

It wasn’t unexpected.
Several warnings were ignored.

The events of 11-SEP-2001 most certainly could have been prevented if the federal government, FBI, CIA, and executive branch had not failed so miserably to prevent what could have easily been prevented.

Afterall, you’d think half a trillion dollar$ or more per year for defense would be enough to stop something that many people repeatedly warned us about.
Rick Rescorla (head of security for Morgan Stanely) and his friend Dan Hill predicted terrorists flying planes into the WTC towers, the Pentagon, White House, Empire State building, etc.
They showed with flight simulator how easy it would be to fly into the WTC towers, Pentagon, White House, Empire State Building, etc.
We were warned many times to secure cock pit doors.
The Israelis warned us about not securing cock pit doors.
The day before 11-SEP-2001, Rumsfeld had received a nebulous warning of Al-Qaeada threat; still perhaps a good reason to maybe secure cockpit doors, eh?
Rick Rescorla (who died on 11-SEP-2001) even asked Morgan Stanley to move out of the WTC towers.
Also, Rick Rescorla predicted the attack on the WTC in year 1993 too.
It wasn’t until after the bombing in 1993 that people started taking Rick Rescorla more seriously (when he started building evacuation drills).
In fact, the inability of the FBI and CIA to connect the dots is so obvious, you have to wonder if the letter “I” in CIA and FBI stands for Incompetence.

Also, lawlessness and the refusal of the federal government to enforce immigration laws quite probably contributed/allowed the events of 11-SEP-2001 (timeline). Especially since 11-SEP-2001 was perpetrated by several illegal aliens, 18 of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 11-SEP-2001 possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 other ID cards, and all 19 terrorits had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake). The terrorists of 11-SEP-2001 very simply tapped into an enormous market of fraudulent documents that exists because 12+ million illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally, anonymously, and spawning wide-spread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents. IDentity theft is also the fastest growing crime in the U.S. Thus, all of those reasons makes the argument about terrorists following us from Iraq back to the U.S. not only weak, but ridiculous and hypocritical. And even if there was some truth to it, there are better ways to deal with it, such as securing our own borders and enforcing existing laws.

What’s worse, 6.5 years later, our borders are still nearly wide-open.

Yet, watch most voters (again) repeatedly reward most of the 535 incumbents in Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates: One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2008 02:17 PM

d.a.n.

As we write today, we are ignoring several hundred threats. The congress,for example, is not dealing with the FiSA problem. If there is an attack, everybody will say that the warnings were there.

What would you have done on 8/11/2001 if your had near certainty that such a thing would happen?

Now add to that the precautions you need to take againt the thousands of other things about which you have threats and warnings.

Imagine arresting 20 Muslim men because they have taken flying lessons and own box cutters.

It is very easy to predict the past. Things look very obvious in hindsight. I always wonder, however, when people claim to have such prescience. Are they really rich, healthy & well adjusted? If they are so good at anticipating the future, we might expect those results.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2008 02:30 PM

Jack wrote: d.a.n. As we write today, we are ignoring several hundred threats.

Yes. Borders are still nearly wide-open.

Illegal Immigration laws are still being ignored.

Cock-pit doors on airlines are still 15% reliable.

Jack wrote: The congress,for example, is not dealing with the FiSA problem. If there is an attack, everybody will say that the warnings were there.

Not true. No one is standing in the way of wire-tapping. All that is needed is civil oversight. So that issue is a red herring.

Jack wrote: What would you have done on 8/11/2001 if your had near certainty that such a thing would happen?

Lots of things.

Rick Rescorla and Dan Hill predicted it.
Unfortunately, the federal government ignored them.
And the federal government is still ignoring potential threats (i.e. open borders, cock-pit doors, immigration laws, etc.).

Jack wrote: Now add to that the precautions you need to take againt the thousands of other things about which you have threats and warnings. Imagine arresting 20 Muslim men because they have taken flying lessons and own box cutters.

You are forgetting a couple of important things: 11-SEP-2001 was perpetrated by several illegal aliens, 18 of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 11-SEP-2001 possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 other ID cards, and all 19 terrorits had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake). The terrorists of 11-SEP-2001 very simply tapped into an enormous market of fraudulent documents that exists because 12+ million illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally, anonymously, and spawning wide-spread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents.

Jack wrote: It is very easy to predict the past. Things look very obvious in hindsight. I always wonder, however, when people claim to have such prescience. Are they really rich, healthy & well adjusted? If they are so good at anticipating the future, we might expect those results.

Lame rationalizations.

You don’t have to be pyschic to know that open borders, unsecured cock-pit doors, and unenforce immigration laws is a recipe for disaster.
It was very preventable.

And those same security issues still exist today (6.5 years later)!

Still, we can do better.
Your rationalizations sound like we can’t do better.
11-SEP-2001 was not preventable only if you are correct (that we can’t do better).
One thing is for sure.
Giving up won’t ever improve anything.
That’s what is interesting about those that have such disdain for those identifying problems and proposing solutions, and promoting the idea that we can do better.
Why?
Is it partisan motivated?
Because it ain’t hard to see that going on.

The problem is us.
All of us.
Not only politicians; voters too.
And if we continue this way, we’ll suffer the painful consequences again.

• Too many voters repeatedly reward irresponsible politicians for all of it with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.


• Too many voters wallow in the paritisan warfare, while ignoring more substantive issues.


• Too many voters fuel the paritisan warfare, while ignoring more substantive issues.


• Too many voters refuse to vote out THEIR incumbents for fear of the OTHER parties incumbents getting re-elected; thus, incumbents enjoy high re-election rates;


• Too many voters blindly pull the party lever, with out even knowing the candidates on the ballot, much less their voting records;


• Too many voters put THEIR party above the nation.


• Too many voters (40% to 50% of all 200 million eligible voters) don’t even bother to vote at all.


• Too many voters merely vote for the candidate (usually an incumbent) that spends the most money, who wins 90% of the time.

Voters have a choice.
They can learn the smart way, or the hard way.
But one way or another, they will get their education, and some painful lessons are already in the pipeline.

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters elect, and deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2008 03:15 PM

d.a.n.

We could not have convicted the 9/11 highjackers of much of anything.

Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed. However, that is not the specific threat. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that only a paraniod can wants to respond to every hypothetical threat.

Re predicting the past - that is true. SO many people are good at what they woudla done; fewer are really success with the here and now.

It is not giving up, BTW, to recognize the role that randomness and surprise plays in human affairs. Anyone foolish enough to believe all the variables are contollable or even knowable, it betrays a certain lack of experience. The non-participants are usually the ones most enthusiasic about what shoulda/coulda/woulda been done.

A responsible and experienced approach recognizes both risk and uncertainty and knows the difference between them.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2008 04:20 PM

Jim T, said: “Educating the electorate is a noble goal. But I fear for too many people raging apathy and willful ignorance are the order of the day.”

Raging apathy doesn’t vote at all, so that problem takes care of itself. Willful ignorance is a statistical demographic predictability. But, the percentage of the total population engaging in it is entirely remediable to minimal levels.

Educating voters as I discuss here, has only been attempted for a short period of time (late 50’s and 60’s and only in some select states and cities). Many politicians and political advisors view the social turmoil of the 1960’s as a direct result of too much political, historical and civics education, and it is no accident that from the 1970’s to the present, objective educational demands in those disciplines has steadily declined in K-12 and virtually eliminated from some higher education fast track curriculums.

It was decided by many politicians and their advisors that too much information and education for the electorate is dangerous to the incumbency of politicians. An electorate directly dependent upon their representatives for news about their representatives performance, is by far the most advantageous education the electorate can get. Advantageous for the politicians, that is.

See how nicely Congress’ allowing oligopolies of conservative and liberal media to share public news dissemination fits into this history of under informing the public. Fits hand in glove with the most pervasive amount of secrecy in government in our history, and media manager professionals hired by virtually every Senator and White House Exec. The very concept of media managers for politicians is anathema to freedom of the press.

But, over the many decades, the political parties and politicians, by a majority of bipartisan consent, have quietly and slyly legislated into existence a system that is rigged almost entirely in the incumbent politician’s favor, and against an objectively informed and educated electorate.

The FEC, Comm. for Pres. Debates, political media managers and dependency upon Congress for media licensure, the mergers of media into the hands of very few partisan owners left and right, and the entire ballot access rules and procedures act in concert with a confused and undereducated public to create a system in which ONLY 2 parties share power, and in which more than 90% of incumbents WILL be reelected regardless of how horrible federal government is managed.

This is precisely why there are no answers to be found in looking to the politicians. If an answer to this corruption of our democracy is to be found, the people must look to themselves, as our founders did in throwing off the yoke of the British monarchy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 04:31 PM

Jack wrote: Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

Yet, today, Congress is still (for the most part) ignoring illegal immigration laws, and nearly wide-open borders.

Jack wrote: However, that is not the specific threat. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that only a paraniod can wants to respond to every hypothetical threat.

Of course not, but that’s not the issue.

We were making it easy; practically inviting it.

We don’t have to make it easy for them either via:

• wide open borders and ports;


• giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens;


• ignoring illegal immigration laws;


• ignoring repeated warnings about unsecured cock-pit doors; many of which still have not been secured;


• giving Social Security numbers to illegal aliens;


• spending half a trillion per year for a myriad of different agences that don’t communicate with each other, and can’t connect the dots right under their nose;


• ignoring Rick Rescorla’s and Dan Hill’s predictions about flying planes into the WTC towers, the Pentagon, White House, Empire State building, etc.; especially after the 1993 attack on the WTC;

Jack wrote:
Re predicting the past - that is true. SO many people are good at what they woudla done; fewer are really success with the here and now.

That’s not the case with 11-SEP-2001.

Lots of bad things can happen due to mere negligence.
The federal government was not a little negligent.
It was severely negligent.
And today:

• our borders and ports are still nearly wide-open;


• we are still giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens;


• we are still ignoring illegal immigration laws;


• we are still ignoring repeated warnings about unsecured cock-pit doors;


• we are still giving Social Security numbers to illegal aliens;

Jack wrote: It is not giving up, BTW, to recognize the role that randomness and surprise plays in human affairs.

OK. However, you first wrote:

• (1) Jack wrote: I don’t think we could have prevented 9/11 based on what we knew before.
• and then wrote …
• (2) Jack wrote: Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

The point is there were simple things that could have and should have been done. Especially when we are spending half a trillion dollars per year for defense.

Jack wrote: Anyone foolish enough to believe all the variables are contollable or even knowable, it betrays a certain lack of experience.

And no one here ever said “all the variables are contollable or even knowable”.

Some simple diligence is all that is required.
There are reports of other foiled plots since.
Those foiled plots can most likely be attributed to more diligence.
We are now on notice.
It is foolish, 6.5 years since 11-SEP-2001, to still have open borders and ports, and still ignoring existing immigration laws.

Jack wrote: The non-participants are usually the ones most enthusiasic about what shoulda/coulda/woulda been done. A responsible and experienced approach recognizes both risk and uncertainty and knows the difference between them.

Perhaps, but again, that’s not the case with 11-SEP-2001.

After all, by your own admission …

Jack wrote:Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

David R. Remer wrote: This is precisely why there are no answers to be found in looking to the politicians. If an answer to this corruption of our democracy is to be found, the people must look to themselves, as our founders did in throwing off the yoke of the British monarchy.

That’s right.

It’s up to the voters. I don’t think Do-Nothing Congress will start addressing some of the nation’s most pressing problems, some worse now then ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s, as long as too many voters continue to repeatedly reward too many irresponsible incumbent politicians in Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

Thus, the voters will have the government that the voters elect, and deserve.
Perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, irrationally fearful, lazy, delusional, and partisan when enough of them are jobless, hommless, and hungry?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2008 06:04 PM

“Educating the voters” sounds like some kind of brainwashing is being contemplated. This is more likely to be done by partisan groups and churches, than anyone without a particular bias. People need to educate themselves. Parents should teach critical thinking from an early age, to help make kids immune from all the advertising and nonsense. The consumer society that we have, has not been created accidentally. Giving the airwaves over to commerce has done it.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 29, 2008 06:15 PM

d.a.n.

Please understand the difference between a general and a specific threat. Yes, if we closed down all air travel, there could be no highjackings. Since there is a general threat, you might advocate that. But we cannot respond specifically to general threats.

Every part of the system is important, but you cannot just claim that one is the key.

YOu might just as well say that if box cutters were illegal or regulated, the highjackers could not have done the deed. Where do you stop?

I come back to the predicting the past idea. People think they understand situations in hindsight because they can see some of the pieces. It makes us feel very intelligent when we can criticize decisions made by others. I accept such criticism from guys who have proven their abilities in anticipating future changes and that is a small group.

It is important to learn from experience. You cannot do that unless you assess it accurately. Claiming knowledge or insights you did not have makes this impossible. Accurate means not too pessimistic or optimistic. Realistic is the key.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2008 06:19 PM

ohrealy said: “People need to educate themselves.”

And with so many functionally illiterate, just how are they supposed to accomplish this none too little feat. It’s like asking the children of the Tx. LDS camp now in custody to teach themselves about the this real world.

Civics, history, and government are not easily self-taught for most folks, and is more interesting and motivating with group education dynamics handled well by competent instructors.

Everyone should teach themselves, is a prescription for what we have today. Near complete lack of accountability for and responsibility by elected politicians.

If it took the best and brightest in America to conceive and draft our form of government, what makes you think it should be a self-taught discipline, ohrealy? Our government happens to be one of the most complex on the face of the earth. Osmosis is not an effective learning mode in this area.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 07:23 PM

Jack wrote: d.a.n. Please understand the difference between a general and a specific threat.

I know the difference. Most people do. Why try to explain the obvious?

Jack wrote: Yes, if we closed down all air travel, there could be no highjackings.

More obfuscation.

No one said we should close down all air travel, and extreme extrapolations like that does not diminish the common-sense things we should have done, but still are not doing, such as:

• (1) securing our borders and ports, which are still nearly wide-open;


• (2) stop giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens;


• (3) stop ignoring illegal immigration laws;


• (4) stop ignoring repeated warnings about unsecured cock-pit doors;


• (5) stop giving Social Security numbers to illegal aliens;

After all, you wrote yourself …

Jack wrote:Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

Jack wrote: Since there is a general threat, you might advocate that.

No, I would not. That’s ridiculous. All that is needed is some common-sense diligence, and less extreme negligence.

Jack wrote: But we cannot respond specifically to general threats.

Not true.

The list of (5) common-sense things above can help to diminish general (unknown) threats.

Jack wrote: Every part of the system is important, but you cannot just claim that one is the key.

And I never claim one is the key.

Jack wrote: YOu might just as well say that if box cutters were illegal or regulated, the highjackers could not have done the deed. Where do you stop?

Sounds like a good reason to secure cock-pit doors, eh?

There are easy, common-sense steps that can be done.
So why are you extrapolating to ridiculous extremes and methods neither I or anyone else suggested?

Jack wrote: I come back to the predicting the past idea. People think they understand situations in hindsight because they can see some of the pieces. It makes us feel very intelligent when we can criticize decisions made by others. I accept such criticism from guys who have proven their abilities in anticipating future changes and that is a small group.

Like when you wrote above …

Jack wrote:Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

Jack wrote: It is important to learn from experience. You cannot do that unless you assess it accurately. Claiming knowledge or insights you did not have makes this impossible. Accurate means not too pessimistic or optimistic. Realistic is the key.

I agree with that completely.

An objective, realistic, open-minded approach is the key.

Still, you first wrote:

• (1) Jack wrote: I don’t think we could have prevented 9/11 based on what we knew before.


• and then wrote …


• (2) Jack wrote: Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

The point is there were simple, common-sense things that could have, and should have been done, and we had already been repeatedly warned about.

Thus, your initial comment is questionable and highly debatable …

Jack wrote: I don’t think we could have prevented 9/11 based on what we knew before. It is one of those unexpected events. They happen because they are … unexpected. Before they happen, nobody takes it seriously.

Especially when you subsequently wrote …

Jack wrote:Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters elect, and deserve.
And the voters aren’t likely to improve their own lot by repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

ohrealy wrote: “Educating the voters” sounds like some kind of brainwashing is being contemplated. This is more likely to be done by partisan groups and churches, than anyone without a particular bias. People need to educate themselves. Parents should teach critical thinking from an early age, to help make kids immune from all the advertising and nonsense. The consumer society that we have, has not been created accidentally. Giving the airwaves over to commerce has done it.

Yes, in a way, all we can do is offer information and evidence (e.g. education). Most people will consider it only if it has a ring of truth about it.

We do not really need a new party.

In the end, people must do as you say:

ohrealy wrote: People need to educate themselves.

And they will.
One way or another.
Whether it is the hard way, or the smart way, voters will get their education.
I wish I could confidently say it wouldn’t be painful.
However, a number of abuses have already resulted in many economic conditions that are now worse than ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s, and some pain and misery is already in the pipeline for a lot of Americans.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2008 07:30 PM

ohrealy said: ““Educating the voters” sounds like some kind of brainwashing is being contemplated.”

There are some examples of that. The Southern Baptist University from which so many Bush Admin folks graduated from, and some charter schools, or Church of LDS home schooling in some sects.

Brainwashing however, is an entirely different topic than the more objective education in civics, history, and government as still taught in many high schools and state run universities. That is why the assault on public education by so many on the right is to be countered vociferously, as what they propose is not education as most Americans understand the term, but, brainwashing true enough.

It takes brainwashing for people to believe that reducing revenues increases revenues. Now that is true brainwashing, as in 2 plus 2 equals 5 of Orwellian lore.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 07:33 PM

We have 2 public television stations in Chicago, one run by the city colleges, and there are libraries everywhere. Children start losing out on education when they want to watch the same crappy programming that the other kids are watching, or start playing video games, which are as addictive as heroin.

This is one of the reasons that home schooling works. The child is more under the parent’s control. The question is who controls the curriculum. Would you want “Civics, history, and government” taught from a specific partisan viewpoint in school? One that says that there are only 2 parties, and independant candidates are stealing votes from the 2 parties? Do you want your children demanding $100 sneakers made by slaves in third world countries?

Go to a grocery store and watch where the kids go, right to the cereal aisle. They know where their desired product is before they can read or write, because they have been programmed to know that, not civics, history, and government.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 29, 2008 08:35 PM

d.a.n.

Could you keep the points shorter with less repetition? Maybe stop using the cut and paste option.

I don’t think you get the point re causality. There are thousands of things that contributed to the 9/11 attacks. Choosing any particular one or group is arbitary. Ultimately, any criminal action is the result of that person being born, but we cannot seriously make that point.

There are many causes. You have to look for the proximate cause. Immigration problems were not the proximate cause of 9/11. We have literally millions of illegal immigrants and visa overstays. Most of them don’t engage in any violent acts. Beyond that not all the 9/11 highjackers were illegal at the time.

In other words, your could not reasonably anticipate 9/11 if you knew that there were illegal immigrants in the U.S. It is not the proximate cause or even A proximate cause.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2008 11:56 PM

David,
While the educated may be better prepared to do something about being screwed, it still doesn’t justify disenfranchising the idiot who knows when he’s being screwed.

While the founders may have bought some stability by only allowing propertied white males to vote, they sewed the seeds of the civil war, as well.

About Felon disenfranchisement, my understanding is that is a state by state issue. I frankly don’t get the reason for this, except their lack of a lobby.

Posted by: googlumpus at April 30, 2008 03:10 AM

It is apropos of this discussion that I have been off earning something of a living for a week and have missed a lot of important discussion. While, in theory, David’s point is well taken, (it would seem logical to assume that a more educated populus would give us somewhat better politicians) just a glance through history doesn’t really support that conclusion. It was a far more restricted voting population that gave us such political luminaries as Huey Long in Louisiana, Pappy O’Daniel and “Ma” Ferguson in Texas, and Warren G Harding as president of the United States. Even the heyday of the voting landed gentry gave us Aaron Burr who, as the killer of Alexander Hamilton, remains to this day the only vice president to shoot a lawyer on purpose.

As awful as the process seems now our election process is essentially evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Look around you and you will see what wonders can be designed by evolution. It is a process that learns by its mistakes- and makes a lot of them along the way.

So, how does one say this? David is right, except that he is wrong.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 30, 2008 09:32 AM

David,
“It takes brainwashing for people to believe that reducing revenues increases revenues. Now that is true brainwashing, as in 2 plus 2 equals 5 of Orwellian lore.”

That is not what we say, of course. What we say is that reducing the burden of collections, a cost of doing business, as a percentage of that business, allows the business to grow faster. The faster growing business is more productive, which increases the collections of revenues over a given time.

Add three every five seconds for a minute and you get thirty-six. Add two instead, but do it every three seconds for a minute, and you get forty.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 30, 2008 09:53 AM

“BOHICA said: “I would go further than David if possible and only allow people who pay taxes to vote.”

That is certainly further that I would go. That results in a bias toward the employed, leaving the unemployed and poor without representation at the ballot box.”

Or maybe it would be an incentive for people to pay their own way.

If you don’t help buy the gas why should you be allowed to drive the car?

Posted by: BOHICA at April 30, 2008 10:16 AM

Lee, thanks for “the only vice president to shoot a lawyer on purpose”, the first laugh of the day. The intersting thing is that they were both part of the Jefferson administration. Burr was only VP because of the electoral college, but TJ worked with Hamilton, even though their views were very different. Providing for a stable currency was considered an important part of government way back then.

On voting for only the employed, of course, many people work part time, and some people work several jobs. Would homemakers be allowed to vote under this kind of system, or only if the master of the house was employed? Would people employed in prison industries be allowed to vote, even if they are felons? If you lose your job because the company moved overseas, you would lose your right to vote? What a numbskull idea!

Posted by: ohrealy at April 30, 2008 12:09 PM

ohrealy,
The alternative, since Burr was running for president, would have made a really interesting difference in American history…
People act like slavery was the only mistake the founders made, but the biggest one, and the one they really caught themselves, was the original method for choosing VPs. Burr made no small contribution to that correction himself. Having both the president and vice president come from the same party was a clear improvement.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 30, 2008 02:28 PM

ohrealy said: “People need to educate themselves.”

And with so many functionally illiterate, just how are they supposed to accomplish this none too little feat. It’s like asking the children of the Tx. LDS camp now in custody to teach themselves about the this real world.

Civics, history, and government are not easily self-taught for most folks, and is more interesting and motivating with group education dynamics handled well by competent instructors.

Everyone should teach themselves, is a prescription for what we have today. Near complete lack of accountability for and responsibility by elected politicians.

If it took the best and brightest in America to conceive and draft our form of government, what makes you think it should be a self-taught discipline, ohrealy? Our government happens to be one of the most complex on the face of the earth. Osmosis is not an effective learning mode in this area.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 30, 2008 02:53 PM

comment#251789 repeats Comment #251724, Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2008 07:23 PM, to which people have already responsed.

The complexities of the government only show the need for simplification. Our government was set up with four cabinet positions, Treasury, State, the Post Office, and Justice, to provide for currency, foreign relations, communications, and justice, which, as in Plato, has been the most difficult to define, provide, and had the most difficulties and discussions of how to apply it under our constitution.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 30, 2008 03:49 PM

Jack wrote: d.a.n. … I don’t think you get the point re causality. There are thousands of things that contributed to the 9/11 attacks. Choosing any particular one or group is arbitary.

Jack, you already said yourself …

Jack wrote:Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

Jack wrote: Ultimately, any criminal action is the result of that person being born, but we cannot seriously make that point.

Obviously, but we are not talking about something that complex.

Like you said above, enforcing illegal immigration laws might have prevented 11-SEP-2001.

Jack wrote: There are many causes. You have to look for the proximate cause. Immigration problems were not the proximate cause of 9/11.

Not true. Illegal immigration was a major factor since 11-SEP-2001 was perpetrated by several illegal aliens, 18 of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 11-SEP-2001 possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 other ID cards, and all 19 terrorits had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake). The terrorists of 11-SEP-2001 very simply tapped into an enormous market of fraudulent documents that exists because 12+ million illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally, anonymously, and spawning wide-spread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents.

Jack wrote: We have literally millions of illegal immigrants and visa overstays. Most of them don’t engage in any violent acts. Beyond that not all the 9/11 highjackers were illegal at the time.

That’s the problem, that obviously contributed to 11-SEP-2001.

And still, today, by the lowest estimates, more people have been killed by illegal aliens in the last 3 years than all U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in the last 5 years.

Jack wrote: In other words, you could not reasonably anticipate 9/11 if you knew that there were illegal immigrants in the U.S. It is not the proximate cause or even A proximate cause.

I disagree.

Lawlessness (i.e. ignoring immigration laws for decades) was a major and obvious (i.e. proximate) contributing factor.
Another major and obvious (i.e. proximate) contributing factor was ignoring numerous warnings to secure cock-pit doors, and today, many are still not secure.
Another major and obvious blunder was ignoring Rick Rescorla’s and Dan Hill’s warnings about planes being used as missiles.
Especially after the first attack on the WTC in 1993 (which he predicted).

That bottom line is, 11-SEP-2001 was something that could have easily been prevented.
Not something that was totally unexpected.
Saying hind-sight is 20/20 doesn’t cut it.
If a person negligenting runs red-lights, their luck will eventually run out, and something bad will happen.
And 6.7 years later, borders are still nearly wide-open, not all cock-pit doors are secured, and illegal immigration laws are still not being enforced, some states are still giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens, and illegal aliens are still getting Social Security numbers.
So it isn’t hard to predict that another 9/11 is highly probable.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 30, 2008 05:07 PM

CORRECTION:
If a person negligenting negligently runs red-lights, their luck will eventually run out, and something bad will happen.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 30, 2008 07:14 PM

David, I’ll bite-
“Our government happens to be one of the most complex on the face of the earth. Osmosis is not an effective learning mode in this area.”

Self-teaching is not a thing we should do alone. This month’s Scientific American Magazine ha an interesting article speaking to the greater effectiveness and efficiency of research carried on with blog-like postings of research information and musings over the Web. All cutting-edge science is self-teaching utilizing time-honored techniques for learning from the experience of experiment.

Guess, then, what we are doing in this forum? It is discussion of our best ideas as to our findings, carried out in a discussion. We aren’t ignoramuses, David. If you are going to have someone teach the ignoramuses what, among these many trains of thought is going to be the chosen “expert opinion”? I’m not arguing for the know-nothings, but after some essential civics well taught, what do you teach?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 30, 2008 07:53 PM

bohica

“If you don’t help buy the gas why should you be allowed to drive the car?”

i love this comment, reminds me of one we used back in the 70s,” gas, grass, or a@#, no one rides for free”. still true though. if you don’t contribute, you have no right to complain, and if you don’t contribute, you have no right to force others to contribute on your behalf.

Posted by: dbs at April 30, 2008 08:17 PM

bohica and dbs “if you don’t contribute, you have no right to complain, and if you don’t contribute, you have no right to force others to contribute on your behalf.”

So if your disabled, widowed or have a medical issue you should not be allowed to vote. Because after all its how much you make that counts. How very libertarian and uber conservative. No W2 no vote. Great thinking guys. Why not the more you earn the more votes you get. Boy I would sure hate to be the guy that goes to fight for your country and gets injured and be forced to live off of vetrans disability checks. Its OK to fight and die for your country but dont you become a burden casue the libertarians and conservatives dont want you to vote. Your lapel pins look a little tarnished guys, you sure your patriotic?

Rational thoughtful,educated informed and with a vested interest? you guys arent helping your case. Just because you think your politically smart doesnt mean your educated. Based on your comments I dont see rational thought or thoughtful I see selfish and greedy. I see ideological not informed.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 1, 2008 01:02 AM

d.a.n.

Major is not the same as proximate. No point in discussing this here since we are speaking from different experience and even using words differently.

We have other posts to tend.

Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2008 01:12 AM

j2t2,

Nowhere did I say that only working people should vote. What I said is only people who contribute should vote. Some of the people you mentioned above should be able to vote and some shouldn’t in my opinion.

Now, answer a question for me please. Do you believe in private property?

Posted by: BOHICA at May 1, 2008 06:30 AM

Jack wrote: d.a.n. Major is not the same as proximate.

Nobody said they had the same exact meaning.

definition of “proximate”: Very near or next, as in space, time, or order. See Synonyms at close. Approximate.

That is yet another attempt to obfuscate and cloud the issue.
Besides, you already wrote …

Jack wrote:
d.a.n.
…
I don’t think you get the point re causality. There are thousands of things that contributed to the 9/11 attacks. Choosing any particular one or group is arbitary.

… and then subsequently …

Jack wrote:Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

Jack wrote: No point in discussing this here since we are speaking from different experience and even using words differently.

That’s just another cop-out, as if you have superior and vastly different experience, aside from the lame and unsubstantiated attempt to create a non-existent dispute over the meaning of the word “proximate”; as if that somehow validates your position.

Jack wrote: We have other posts to tend.

Yeah, right.

So which is it?
How do you reconcile your apparently conflicting and false statements (see (1) … (6) below)?

The issue (the validity of your statement; see number (1) below) you are trying to obfuscate is really quite simple, and apparently contradicted by number (4).

You wrote …

• (1) Jack wrote: I don’t think we could have prevented 9/11 based on what we knew before. It is one of those unexpected events. They happen because they are … unexpected. Before they happen, nobody takes it seriously.

… and …

• (2) Jack wrote: There are many causes. You have to look for the proximate cause. Immigration problems were not the proximate cause of 9/11.

… and …

• (3) Jack wrote: I don’t think you get the point re causality. There are thousands of things that contributed to the 9/11 attacks. Choosing any particular one or group is arbitary.

… and …

• (4) Jack wrote: Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

… and …

• (5) Jack wrote: As we write today, we are ignoring several hundred threats. The congress,for example, is not dealing with the FISA problem. If there is an attack, everybody will say that the warnings were there.

… and …

• (6) Jack wrote: We could not have convicted the 9/11 highjackers of much of anything.

Number (6) is false.

5 of the 19 hijackers of 11-SEP-2001 were illegal aliens, and had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States.

And amazingly, in the months before 11-SEP-2001, 4 of those terrorists were stopped by local police for speeding.

And those 4 illegal alien could have been arrested and “convicted” if the police officers had realized that they were illegal aliens.

And 14 of the 19 hijackers were on the FBI’s Terror Watch List!

Therefore, the failure to enforce existing immigration laws was a major and obvious factor, since 11-SEP-2001 was perpetrated by several illegal aliens (5 were illegal aliens), 18 of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 11-SEP-2001 possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 other ID cards, and all 19 terrorits had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake which is also federal felony crime). The terrorists of 11-SEP-2001 very simply tapped into an enormous market of fraudulent documents that exists because 12+ million illegal aliens have been allowed to breach our borders, many commit other crimes, and now reside here illegally, anonymously, and spawning wide-spread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 1, 2008 06:52 AM

Lee Jamison wrote: I’m not arguing for the know-nothings, but after some essential civics well taught, what do you teach?

• (01) History.
• (02) Human psychology; to understand the root causes of many of our problems so that we understand the need for Transparency and Accountability.
• (03) Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
• (04) CCorruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability
• (05) Voters are culpable too, and there will be painful consequences for their own excessive apathy, complacency, blind partisanship, wallowing in the circular and distracting partisan warfare, misplaced loyalties, greed, selfishness, delusion, irrational fear, laziness, and ignorance. We should all try to energize and educate each other (and blogs like this are a good way to learn).
• (06) Education and understanding painful consequences of those things in number (05) can compensate for insufficient Conscience/Virtue in the equation in number (03).
• (07) Voting Guidelines …
• (08) In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.
• (09) Voters will get their education one way or another, whether it is the smart way, or the hard and painful way.
• (10) Stop repeat offenders. Stop repeatedly rewarding them with 93%-to-99% re-election rates: one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm
• (11) Learn about, understand, and stop the 10 major abuses causing the worst economic conditions ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.
• (12) Solutions …

Posted by: d.a.n at May 1, 2008 07:43 AM

d.a.n.

I cannot resist the one last post here. The reason you find contradiction between those two statments is because you are not understanding the idea of proximate cause.

THe reason you need to seek the proximate causes is because causality is always very complicated. I remember hearing someone explain that Justice Roger B. Tanney had caused the aboltion of slavery, since the Dred Scott decision created so much trouble that it could have provoked the civil war, which ultimately abolished slavery. You might find this logical, I don’t.

I really do not think there is much point continuing this line, however. I understand my point and I suppose you understand yours, but we do not understand each others. There is nothing left to say. We are all repeating our arguments or in maybe using cut and paste.

Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2008 08:52 AM

“I would go further than David if possible and only allow people who pay taxes to vote. I hear the cries of “poll tax” echoing already, but I think that if you don’t support your government, you shouldn’t have a say in how it’s run.”

“If you don’t help buy the gas why should you be allowed to drive the car?”

But these people may not pay taxes and if they have children they may actually get money back that they didnt pay in.

“Now, answer a question for me please. Do you believe in private property? “

Whats not to believe Bohica? Private property is everywhere. Its not like a UFO or such. Do you mean do I have faith and worship private property and have no other god before me. No. However the concept of a person owning their property as opposed to a corporation or the government owning the property for them of course.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 1, 2008 08:55 AM

“But these people may not pay taxes and if they have children they may actually get money back that they didnt pay in.”

Exactly. In my opinion those people who don’t pay taxes should not vote.

“However the concept of a person owning their property as opposed to a corporation or the government owning the property for them of course.”

So we agree that the fruits of your labor belong to you and the fruits of my labor belongs to me.

Posted by: BOHICA at May 1, 2008 09:11 AM

Jack wrote: d.a.n. I cannot resist the one last post here.

Obviously. Despite having said three times …

Jack wrote:There is nothing left to say.

No point in discussing this here since we are speaking from different experience and even using words differently.

I really do not think there is much point continuing this line, however.

Jack wrote: The reason you find contradiction between those two statments is because you are not understanding the idea of proximate cause.

False.

I understand it perfectly.
This supposed lack of understanding of “proximate cause” is a red-herring …

• (1) Jack wrote: I don’t think we could have prevented 9/11 based on what we knew before. It is one of those unexpected events. They happen because they are … unexpected. Before they happen, nobody takes it seriously.


• (2) Jack wrote: Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers could not have done the deed.

And your other statement was false …

Jack wrote: We could not have convicted the 9/11 highjackers of much of anything.

… since 5 of the 19 hijackers of 11-SEP-2001 were illegal aliens, and had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States; prior to 11-SEP-2001, 4 of those terrorists were stopped by local police for speeding; 4 illegal alien could have been arrested and “convicted” if the police officers had realized that they were illegal aliens; and
14 of the 19 hijackers were on the FBI’s Terror Watch List!

The cause is negligence.
Less negligence and more diligence could most likely have prevented or mitigated the damage done on 11-SEP-2001.
Perhaps one less plane might have been hijacked had some of the criminals and illegal aliens been arrested, and existing laws were not being continually ignored.

Jack wrote: THe reason you need to seek the proximate causes is because causality is always very complicated.

The proximate causes of 11-SEP-2001 are not that complicated.

And more diligence and less negligence could have probably prevented or mitigated the damage done on 11-SEP-2001.
Ignoring existing laws is inviting disaster.
Still ignoring existing immigration laws, since 11-SEP-2001 is really stupid.
Congress and many politicians refuse to enforce existing laws, and persue common-sense solutions.

The point is, ignoring problems will almost certainly lead to future problems.
That is a fundamental reason for not continually ignoring problems.
That is, it is not hard to predict we will suffer more painful consequences for failing to enforce existing laws and securing our borders.
Especially when some candidates are saying the terrorists are going to follow us from Iraq.
Where ever the terrorists come from, haven’t we learned anything?
Why are borders still nearly wide-open?
If there’s another attack, these things being neglected now will most certainly be part of the cause.

Jack wrote: I remember hearing someone explain that Justice Roger B. Tanney had caused the abolotion of slavery, since the Dred Scott decision created so much trouble that it could have provoked the civil war, which ultimately abolished slavery. You might find this logical, I don’t.

I don’t either. That’s a stretch.

But the issue here is not the many causes of 11-SEP-2001, but the simple and obvious things that could have prevented it.
Especially when there were so many ignored warnings prior to that (about cock-pit doors, open borders, illegal immigration, Rick Rescorla’s and Dan Hill’s warnings, and the 1st attack on the WTC, etc.).

Jack wrote: I really do not think there is much point continuing this line, however. I understand my point and I suppose you understand yours, but we do not understand each others.

Not true.

I understand your point perfectly, but simply disagree.

Jack wrote: There is nothing left to say. We are all repeating our arguments or in maybe using cut and paste.

Perhaps. That’s what happens when people disagree.

You argue that 11-SEP-2001 could not have been prevented, because the reasons are too numerous and complex.
I disagree. Despite the many causes, there were simple and obvious things that could and should have been done to prevent or mitigate the damage done.
If we were to always take the position that things that have happened are unavoidable, then we will never learn from those mistakes.
Common-sense preventative measures can make a difference, and could have most certainly made a difference on 11-SEP-2001, as corroborated by your own statement …

Jack wrote: Yes, we should keep out illegal aliens and if we had done that the 9/11 highjackers [probably] could not have done the deed.

The only thing I’d change in your statement is to insert the word “probably”, since none of us can speak of things with such certainty.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 1, 2008 10:01 AM

Exactly. In my opinion those people who don’t pay taxes should not vote.

Exactly Bohica and as I previuosly stated “So if your disabled, widowed or have a medical issue you should not be allowed to vote. Because after all its how much you make that counts. How very libertarian and uber conservative. Boy I would sure hate to be the guy that goes to fight for your country and gets injured and be forced to live off of vetrans disability checks. Its OK to fight and die for your country but dont you become a burden casue the libertarians and conservatives dont want you to vote. Your lapel pins look a little tarnished guys, you sure your patriotic?

“So we agree that the fruits of your labor belong to you and the fruits of my labor belongs to me.”

I assume you are equating wages and earnings with private property as if the earnings are land. However as a citizen of this country isnt it also your duty to pay others that work for you? The disabled solider that risked his life to defend your freedom from tyranny doesnt deserve a portion of your “privste property” we often refer to as income? The wife and children of the slain soilder that gave his life to defend your right to work for and earn “privage property” doesnt deserve a vote? You feel as if you have no obligation to up your share of your “private property” we often call money to pay for the infrastructure of this country, the defense of the country, the welfare of the citizens of this country? How ridiculous an agruement is that?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 1, 2008 10:23 AM

BOHICA wrote: In my opinion those people who don’t pay taxes should not vote.

Not paying taxes is a violation of the law.

For the poor already living below the poverty level, what’s the point in taxing them, and possibly pushing them onto welfare. You can’t get blood out of a turnip. And the revenues from such low income levels would be a very tiny portion of taxes from the poor.

Being poor is not a crime, and millions of Americans are working poor. Some work two jobs and barely get by. Also, the credits that some people receive are partially offset by the Social Security and Medicare taxes that are withheld from everyone’s income.

So even the poor pay some taxes.
They also pay sales taxes (and sales taxes are always regressive taxes).
But if you are only talking about some poor that do not pay income taxes, the reason for that is because of the standard and dependent deducations. But everyone gets those deductions. Just because their income was so low as to be below the deduction is not grounds to be punished by not being allowed to vote.

So, there are few (if any) people that don’t pay some taxes.

And do we need another vast system to determine who paid taxes, and who did not?

The sad fact is, 40% to 50% of voters don’t bother to vote at all (of all levels of wealth and income).

Not that we should want people to vote for the sake of voting, but what is sad is that so many people are so disinterested. What makes no sense are those that complain about government, and then don’t vote, or blindly pull the party-lever without even knowing the candidates on the ballot, much less their voting records.

And in this coming election, many voters will stay home becasue they don’t like any of the presidential candidates.
That’s a mistake.
They are forgetting about Congress.
With Congress’ approval ratings as low as 11%, does it make sense to allow them to retain their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies?
Therefore, the least voters could do is stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates. Otherwise, these abuses will continue to be ignored, and voters will only have themselves to thank for it, while getting their eduation the hard way.

At any rate, the voters will get their education one way or another, and they voters will have the government that they elect, and deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 1, 2008 11:26 AM

j2t2,

Spinning my words won’t make your case any stronger.

” Exactly Bohica and as I previuosly stated “So if your disabled, widowed or have a medical issue you should not be allowed to vote”

I see nothing that stops any of the above from making some contribution to government.

“Because after all its how much you make that counts.”

Spinning my words. I never said anything about any amounts.

” Boy I would sure hate to be the guy that goes to fight for your country and gets injured and be forced to live off of vetrans disability checks”

Me too. But I took that chance to safeguard your freedoms.

“Its OK to fight and die for your country but dont you become a burden casue the libertarians and conservatives dont want you to vote.”

No, It’s an HONOR to defend the the rights and freedoms that some of us still cherish. And yes if they don’t contribute, they shouldn’t vote.

“I assume you are equating wages and earnings with private property as if the earnings are land.”

That is a fair assumption.

“However as a citizen of this country isnt it also your duty to pay others that work for you?”

I don’t know what being a citizen has to do with it but of course it’s everyone’s duty to pay for what they get. Where did I state otherwise?

“The disabled solider that risked his life to defend your freedom from tyranny doesnt deserve a portion of your “privste property” we often refer to as income?”

Yes and he gets it. What does that have to do with voting?

“The wife and children of the slain soilder that gave his life to defend your right to work for and earn “privage property” doesnt deserve a vote?”

Not if they don’t contribute

“You feel as if you have no obligation to up your share of your “private property” we often call money to pay for the infrastructure of this country, the defense of the country, the welfare of the citizens of this country?”

Slow down a little j2t2. So much spinning will make you dizzy. I never said anything like that.

Posted by: BOHICA at May 1, 2008 12:07 PM

Lee said: “All cutting-edge science is self-teaching utilizing time-honored techniques for learning from the experi