|
Off Topic: PLEASE VOTE NOVEMBER 7th |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345> |
| Author | |
CeeJay 
New Slug 
Joined: 13 Sep 2005 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 01 Nov 2006 at 9:34am |
quote: gmhp, thanks for the link! i've been doing a little looking to discover which initiatives were up for vote this time. that was very helpful! |
|
 |
|
|
CeeJay
New Slug
Joined: 13 Sep 2005 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2006 at 9:36am |
quote: it does seem to be pretty non-partisan, just a list of questions and the candidate's answers. |
|
|
|
|
MDC
New Slug
Joined: 04 Dec 2002 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2006 at 11:54am |
|
So I suppose that since voting is so valuable, then you must be supporting Arizona's Proposition 200 on the ballot this year. One voter each general election would win $1 Million just for voting(funded by unclaimed lottery winnings).
What does this lead to? Millions of people going to vote, randomly selecting candidates and yes/no on initiatives. Just for a shot at the prize money. Having people vote for the sake of voting, is not any different. Whoever's listed first on the ballot is almost guaranteed to win in this situation. What happened to democracy? I don't think anyone who's eligible should be excluded from voting, I just don't want uninformed people voting on things they have no clue about. If you want to say that's "elitist", then you're being ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
LDOMAJ
New Slug
Joined: 17 May 2004 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2006 at 12:46pm |
Originally posted by MDC |
|
|
|
|
N_or_S_bound
New Slug
Joined: 20 May 2005 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2006 at 12:50pm |
|
What's the difference between being "uninformed" from being "informed" only by your own special interest group? Most people limit their exposure to an issue to that of their own interest in it.
The elitist mindset is only the "qualified" should vote. Who makes that call? Who sets the criteria? Yep, the elitist who only wants a certain person to vote, preferably in agreement with the elitist's vote. If that's "ridiculous", then I'm guilty as charged. I know a lot of folks who fight and will die to keep the right to vote, even the uninformed right to vote, in place. It's not a perfect system, but find one that's better. Your approach is a slippery slope and is being touted currently to drive certain groups away from the polling places. A more fundamental problem is at the educational level where truth is hidden or masked and people don't know how to think critically to arrive at a conclusion as to how to vote. Roll that back even further and you reveal a lack of moral grounding to guide the voters to vote for the nation's and the peoples' good, even if they lose something personally in the final outcome. NoSb SOV because you can, HOV because you care! |
|
|
|
|
n/a
New Slug
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2006 at 12:54pm |
|
Sorry NoSb, this is an elitist country. How do you think we got the electoral college? Politicians did not trust the "uninformed general public" to make decisions that would impact the government and thus, the financial stability of the country. Our founding fathers were creating an environment friendly to business and the financial stability of our markets.
Of course, in the early days of our country, before widely available national media, many people were uninformed. Think of all the homesteaders out in the far reaches of our country who were virtually cut off from the metro centers. Few knew the political issues facing the country and fewer cared, they were more interested in getting in the harvest. Many people did not know the candidates, what they stood for, what it meant to them, or even who was elected until several weeks after an election. So, why do we still have the electoral college? Now that's a question worthy of debate! If you think the average citizen elects the President, you're wrong. We have seen that in past elections when the popular vote did not support the electoral vote. In this case the electors vote the president into office (of course, in the most recent case it was the Supreme Court, with a little help from one candidate's brother, the Governor in a swing state). I understand why people are apathetic about voting when this kind of corruption is so apparent. And of course this answers another question posed on this forum; where are all the "good guys?" I'll borrow a quote from Graucho Marx, "I'd never belong to a club that would accept me as a member." The good guys, the worthy politicians, those who we would want to stand up for us in politics would never take such a job that forces them to compromise their principles as much as politics does. |
|
|
|
|
MDC
New Slug
Joined: 04 Dec 2002 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2006 at 3:27pm |
|
NoSB,
I didn't say anyone isn't qualified. I said that people should be informed before voting. How they get informed is up to them. Suggesting that I'm being "elitist" by saying this is ridiculous. What you seem to be suggesting is that people should go to the polls and vote, regardless of whether they want to. I disagree. |
|
|
|
|
getmehome pweeze
Master Slug 
Joined: 18 Jun 2004 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 501 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2006 at 3:52pm |
|
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (-ltzm, -l-) n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class. e·litist adj. & n. Didn't mean to start a debate with this topic. Oh well, bound to happen I guess. Slug'n till 2010 |
|
|
|
|
N_or_S_bound
New Slug
Joined: 20 May 2005 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Nov 2006 at 7:16am |
quote: Disagreed. The USA is not an elitist country (yet). It IS a democratic republic. When you start to twist the original intent and execution of it to fit your own political views, then you do a disservice to the original founders and those who still believe it to be the best form of government in existence. Without its problems? Hardly, but then if you believe that is achievable then you're a member of the cult of utopianism. Utopia won't happen at the hand of mankind. The original founders understood that the masses were "uninformed" on specific issues, but that they were grounded in belief systems from which flow morals and values to guide their actions, ergo their vote. The founders knew that, they were "informed" people, but they were far from "elitists" and didn't set up a means of governance that paid favor to only themselves. A brush up on history by those who claim otherwise is in order. Raymond, your defeatist attitude is surprising. For one who CAN eloquently make the case for slugging, I am surprised at your apparent disdain and regard for our form of government. It's not perfect, but it beats EVERY other form of government out there, even with its flaws. I'll not give in, I'm not utopian in any regards, I am pragmatic and yet hopeful that good people will come back and redeem the system we have. I've lived in a "pure democracy" and it was a mess then and even more so now. Corruption? It exists, but the electoral college isn't corruption as it's defined in any rational dictionary I can find. Throw in the towel if you'd like, but one question for you before you depart: Where will you go instead? NoSb SOV because you can, HOV because you care! |
|
|
|
|
CallmeMrSlug
New Slug
Joined: 21 Mar 2005 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Nov 2006 at 8:37am |
|
NoSb
While I think we all share the belief in our form of government, I think you overstate the willingness of the founding fathers to extend the right to suffrage to the people. Consider this historical timeliness... 1776 When this country announced its independence from Britain, voting rights were based on property ownership. This typically meant that those voting were white males over the age of 21 of Protestant religion. 1787 In the newly drafted Constitution, states were given the power to set voting mandates and most were still favorable to white males who owned property. 1830 Many states had dropped religion and property ownership as requirements for voting and with such a large percentage of the population at the polls, political parties were beginning to develop. 1868 The 14th Amendment recognizes African Americans as citizens, giving them the right to vote. However, state officials continue attempts to deny this right. 1870 African Americans were given the right to vote in the 15th Amendment. It prohibited any state or local government from denying that right. 1890 Wyoming becomes the first state to recognize women's right to vote and provide for it in a state constitution. 1913 Voting power is expanded with 17th Amendment, calling for the popular election of US. senators. 1920 The 19th Amendment was added to the Constitution, giving women across the nation the right to vote. Sufferin' Till Sufferage 1940 Congress recognizes Native Americans as citizens. However, it wasn't until 1947 that all states granted them the right to vote. 1964 The 24th Amendment declares that no person should be denied the right to vote because they cannot pay a "poll tax." 1965 An amendment to the Voting Rights Act bans the use of literacy tests, poll taxes and other obstacles designed to keep people from voting. 1971 The voting age is lowered to 18. I also do not agree that the citizen being "uninformed" had anything to do with the intent of the founding fathers. I think it was felt that if you were a property owner, you had a greater interest and incentive to participate in the process. I think the citizens of the new country were, to steal a line from a song "fully aware of what they were going through." So we went, over time, to limiting the vote to property owners of certain religions to extending it without consideration of property, religion, race, gender, income or maturity (age). Few would doubt this expansion has led to a better democratic process but it is hardly the limited right to vote envisioned by our forefathers... |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options