World War Three
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Monday, June 15, 2026 15:50
VIEWED: 11824
PAGE 6 of 10
I'm going to weigh in here with what is likely to be an unpopular and flame-generating post:
I think USB has a point.
The idea that a guy who slouches on his couch watch soaps all day who doesn't know what any of the policies of GWB actually are, and this guy has the same power of political influence as a professor of public policy, or a former ambassador, or me, bugs me. A very nice and well meaning conservative chick who runs the general store counter on weekends and holidays who pays no attention to politics at all, in '04 said she just voted and she voted for Bush. I said 'why?', not that there was much choice, certainly not Kerry, but badnarik or someone, anyway, and she said 'oh, I don't know, I wanted to vote, couldn't decide, and so thought, might as well bush.'
Might as well Bush. Is this what's making our leadership choices in this country? might as well bush. It could be a campaign slogan. Forget keeping america safe, or something like that, Might as well Bush.
Anyway, sure, the US isn't a representational democracy, that might be an okay form of govt., but it's certainly not ours. Certainly we had better leaders back in the days when fewer people voted.
But why have democracy at all? I mean if you're going to make a radical change you could never get away with disenfranchising idiots, so just build a new system. Conservatives have been saying for years that what makes the economy work is the meritocracy - essentially, communism or the welfare state is the democratic economy, one body one dollar, like one body one vote. Why not a meritocratic political system? If you show ability, up you go. If you suck, bam, out the door. And sure, maybe voters could decide if someone was doing a good job, we'd have to have something to prevent it from being corrupted.
Historically, it's hard to do worse than the results of democracy, or perhaps it's impossible, except maybe for communism. So maybe it's time to try something else.
Just throwing it out there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Might as well be Bush!!! LOL. I've heard worse; "Because my husband did", "He was on top", And the always entertaining "Why not". And 'trove I don't think there are that many idiots, but there are enough to swing an election and that just should not happen.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I guess when you think about it, democracy is really a popularity contest. Huh.
Think about this.
What if when we went to war we said, 'okay troops., who do you like to lead us into battle' and everyone said 'sgt. tits, because she's mad hawt' or the major said 'lt. racist, because he'll put the black guys on the front lines.'
Or what if in a corporate staff meeting, everyone said "hey, let's make Mr. Hepper president, because he bought us drinks, we like him, and he'll give us a raise," ... even if it bankrupts the company.
"joe should be the preach., no wait, make him pope!"
And yet, we do it. And without great results. The results are terrible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Although my first impulse is to channel Jayne (let's not be excluding people) in the interest of exercising my divergent side I'll ramble for a bit.
I have yet to meet someone who proposed limiting the franchise who didn't automatically assume they would be eligible to vote under the new system. So my first question is, would you accept a system where you yourself were ineligible?
As HKCavalier pointed out, who gets to make the rules? The first rule, in my mind, is that anyone involved with coming up with a new system should automatically be ineligible to vote for the rest of their life. That way they couldn't game the system to favor themselves.
Should we take historical precedents into account? Poll taxes and literacy tests and other measures have been used in the past to keep various groups from exercising the right to vote. For me, the design of any system needs to take that into consideration. Say, for example, the use of literacy tests. There have been long stretches of time in our history where people who failed those tests couldn't vote. So, in all fairness, those groups should be grandfathered in. Maybe look at how long literacy tests were used, a hundred years for example. So for the first hundred years of a new program those who fail literacy tests are still eligible.
Should we take conflict of interest into account? If you work for the government, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote for your own boss. So I could see a case made for any public workers being ineligible to vote. If you stretch that a bit more, that would exclude any member of the armed forces.
Should we take accuracy of information sources into account? I'm reminded of that recent study where viewers of Fox News were more likely to be misinformed about current events than viewers of other news channels. So should we automatically disqualify potential voters who watch Fox News on a regular basis? And what is a regular basis?
Should we penalize people on the basis of rhetoric? There are prominent pundits who make a lot of money (whether through radio shows or by writing books) by calling large proportions of Americans traitors. Maybe those who listen or buy their books shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Maybe go by viewpoints. If you don't believe in big government, but instead subscribe to the Grover Norquist school of thought, maybe you shouldn't be voting on those who would administrate that big government.
Or how about another conflict of interest angle. There are a lot of corporations that benefit greatly from government action. The pharmaceutical industry got a huge windfall from the Medicare bill. The credit card industry got a huge windfall from the bankruptcy bill. And so on and so forth. Maybe all the employees of companies that have seen an increase in their profits as a direct result of government action should be ineligible. Or maybe just those who are salaried.
In case you hadn't guess by now, this has mostly been tongue in cheek. Sure it would be nice if people who were uninformed didn't vote. But it wouldn't be America. Sure it would be nice if those who were misinformed didn't vote. But that wouldn't be America either. Sure it would be great for some people if the poor didn't vote. But that would be an America we have left behind. Sure it would be nice for some people if those of a darker hue didn't vote. But that would also be an America we have left behind. We have been moving forward as a country, at least in my opinion, by expanding the franchise. Not limiting it.
I see the problem as an opportunity for education, rather than punishment. We hold these truths to be self-evident and all that. If we start saying who can and cannot vote based on any rationale other than convicted criminal activity (which is another discussion) then we're moving more towards a "some are more equal than others." And that, to me, would not be America.
* edited to add: This reminds me of something else.
When I was younger, my friends and I had an expression we'd sometimes use whe
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, how could four simple questions written in a number of languages be used by one party or another to their benefit? It at least puts in place a minimal standard. If you want to vote find out the answers. In doing so the populace may learn a thing or two about the political atmosphere and system of their country. An informed populace is a lot better than what we now have. Have you ever watched a talk show where they send someone to interview "people on the street"? Who's the vice president? Name one article in the Bill of Rights? How ridiculous are the answers?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay. Let's play around with that.
What are the questions?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Question #1 Who was the hero of canton?
WHAT???? You got it wrong??? too bad, you cant vote!
just a little side note of humor there since I agree with some of you, disagree with some of you, want to have a drink with some of you, think some of you are idiots, and think that even a few are missing from the nut house. And those are my observations from only being a member for a week. haha
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let's try this again. In theory, your four questions are very simple. But as soon as you talk about changing our current system of government to integrate these questions, you can't ignore our current system of government!
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Again, how could four simple questions written in a number of languages be used by one party or another to their benefit? It at least puts in place a minimal standard. If you want to vote find out the answers. In doing so the populace may learn a thing or two about the political atmosphere and system of their country. An informed populace is a lot better than what we now have. Have you ever watched a talk show where they send someone to interview "people on the street"? Who's the vice president? Name one article in the Bill of Rights? How ridiculous are the answers?
If you were king for a day and said, "All I'm here to do is institute this four question test to establish who gets to vote and who does not and then I promise to abdicate," you might be able to implement your test.
For a day.
'Cause, once you abdicated, folks would repeal the thing and we'd go back to doing things the way we do them.
So unless you are the "benevolent dictator" of the United States, you have to understand that any test we established to enfranchise people, would innevitably be used to disenfranchise. This kind of control over the electorate is a bad idea.
What about this crazy notion: improve education. But here's a guy who makes the point much more eloquently than I:
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."
"The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree."
"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity."
"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson
Pretty wise words. You gotta wonder what it would be like if somebody started a country founded on these principles.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MyOtherCarIsAFirefly:
Question #1 Who was the hero of canton?
WHAT???? You got it wrong??? too bad, you cant vote!
just a little side note of humor there since I agree with some of you, disagree with some of you, want to have a drink with some of you, think some of you are idiots, and think that even a few are missing from the nut house. And those are my observations from only being a member for a week. haha
Join the revolution.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Okay. Let's play around with that.
What are the questions?
Once again, read above post. That or something similar, just make them easy. I would love to know how many people voted in the last election that could not answer those questions. If you can not answer those questions you can't vote. And again put them in any language. How some posters feel one party could benefit from that idea I will never understand. The only entity that benefits is our country.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME