**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

I'm not saying many of the things you think I'm saying. I don't defend attempts to discriminate against black voters, but that isn't the same thing as deterring ability to vote. Is it wrong to close polling stations based on skin color? Yeah. Does that deter their ability to vote? Not by any reasonable measure. Absentee voting has rendered the need for stations obsolete. I'm not even a fan of absentee voting, because it raises turnout too high, as far as I can tell. I wonder if Washington will ever go non-socialist since we went all-absentee.

Also the law says a lot of things, and a lot of them are wrong. I'm not saying this law is wrong, just that appealing to the law as a source of good ideas is a bad idea.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not saying many of the things you think I'm saying. I don't defend attempts to discriminate against black voters, but that isn't the same thing as deterring ability to vote. Is it wrong to close polling stations based on skin color? Yeah. Does that deter their ability to vote? Not by any reasonable measure. Absentee voting has rendered the need for stations obsolete. I'm not even a fan of absentee voting, because it raises turnout too high, as far as I can tell. I wonder if Washington will ever go non-socialist since we went all-absentee.

The laws were made in the first place to deter blacks from voting. They couldn't have designed them any better without coming right out and saying 'if you're black we're going to make it harder for you to vote.' But you seem to think because blacks have other options that the law shouldn't affect them and they shouldn't complain. Then why make the law in the first place if it's not going to have an impact? It makes no sense.

Arguing that these people are missing out on the chance to vote because they're too lazy to stand in line for four hours is absurd.

And now when you say absentee voting raises the turnout too high, it goes back to what you previously said about the 'wrong' people having the right to vote. It sounds like you would be happier in a fascist state.

Also the law says a lot of things, and a lot of them are wrong. I'm not saying this law is wrong, just that appealing to the law as a source of good ideas is a bad idea.

I was only pointing out that the courts did not agree with your assessment that those laws were obsolete and likely to have no effect. I happen to agree with the courts as do a lot of other people. If you want to hold yourself as a higher authority on voter rights than the courts, that's up to you. But since you seem disenchanted with democracy for giving the 'wrong' people the right to vote, then it seems you're less willing than the courts to uphold the creed of democracy which is the fundamental ideal of your own constitution.

I'd be very surprised if you had the same reaction to someone deciding you were the 'wrong' type of voter and they should try to make it harder for you to vote.

[wufwugy]

The laws were made in the first place to deter blacks from voting. They couldn't have designed them any better without coming right out and saying 'if you're black we're going to make it harder for you to vote.' But you seem to think because blacks have other options that the law shouldn't affect them and they shouldn't complain. Then why make the law in the first place if it's not going to have an impact? It makes no sense.

I think nothing of the sort. The context in which I responded to you was the idea that these protocols make it harder to vote. They don't. Absentee voting is much easier than using booths, and it's cheaper.

Arguing that these people are missing out on the chance to vote because they're too lazy to stand in line for four hours is absurd.

Nowhere did I say that. North Carolina has streamlined no-excuse absentee voting. They could close every damn station in the state and voting would not be any harder. It would be easier actually. States that have gone all absentee get enormous turnout in the general election, probably because of how much easier it is.

And now when you say absentee voting raises the turnout too high, it goes back to what you previously said about the 'wrong' people having the right to vote. It sounds like you would be happier in a fascist state.

You have mischaracterized what I said.

I was only pointing out that the courts did not agree with your assessment that those laws were obsolete and likely to have no effect.

The courts, on this issue, are concerned with race equality at every level, including appearances. I doubt it would be in the court's purview to have an opinion on efficacy of the voting methods.

I happen to agree with the courts as do a lot of other people. If you want to hold yourself as a higher authority on voter rights than the courts, that's up to you.

I hold myself to the authority of reason.

But since you seem disenchanted with democracy for giving the 'wrong' people the right to vote, then it seems you're less willing than the courts to uphold the creed of democracy which is the fundamental ideal of your own constitution.

"Democracy" isn't in the US Constitution.

My "disenchanted" view of democracy is no different than your disenchanted view of letting students write their own grades.

It is wrong to disenfranchise people from voting for the wrong reasons, but that does not mean that it's optimal for everybody to vote. I don't have a solution to this problem. Previously on this board I have proposed the idea of only those who pay net taxes having the right to vote, but as was pointed out then, the idea is not without problems. Regardless, we can certainly do much better than the system we have now, which is one that rewards unjust voting behavior.

[Poopadoop]

There's a balance that would yield low turnout among those who vote for the worst reasons and high turnout among those who vote for the best reasons

There are many ways in which the vote has been expanded that have been terrible for society. If you want to be a democracy perfectly, go ahead and have everybody vote. But if you want a better society, you're not gonna want to have everybody vote.

I'm not even a fan of absentee voting, because it raises turnout too high, as far as I can tell.

And now when you say absentee voting raises the turnout too high, it goes back to what you previously said about the 'wrong' people having the right to vote. It sounds like you would be happier in a fascist state.

You have mischaracterized what I said.

Please, explain what you meant then.

[wufwugy]

Please, explain what you meant then.

People voting for the wrong reasons is different than the wrong people voting, at least by normal connotation. Suggesting fascism shows the connotation applied.

There's nothing even remotely comparable in these two things.

Students shouldnt grade themselves because their incentives are too selfish and they dont have enough information to do so well. Similar exists within voting, which I'll explain next.

Explain what 'unjust voting behavior' is and how the system rewards it please.

Millions of people vote to have the government take from others and give to themselves. If I were to go into a rich lady's house and take 10% of her jewelry, I would be doing something most people consider wrong. But if I were to convince enough of my neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods to tell the government to do it for us, we would be "exercising our right." As we can see, a problem arises when we think of voting as a right granted merely being a person who exists. Western societies have injured themselves greatly by allowing a voting system where people behave in unjust ways.

To apply this to "people voting for the wrong reasons," if somebody doesn't work and votes to have people who do work pay more so he can have more welfare, no, he should not be allowed to vote. The degree to which we can create standards regarding voting rights that reflect this is a question. Discarding votes due to what they are is definitely not an answer, in case you thought that's one place I was going. My best (simple) solution involves basing the right to vote on tax status, or something to that effect.

[Poopadoop]

People voting for the wrong reasons is different than the wrong people voting, at least by normal connotation. Suggesting fascism shows the connotation applied.

It's irrelevant whether you call them the 'wrong group' or whether you say they're voting for the 'wrong reasons'. You're trying to justify restricting the vote to people who you think are qualified, i.e., people who agree with your political views. If that's not fascism I don't know what is.

[wufwugy]

It's irrelevant whether you call them the 'wrong group' or whether you say they're voting for the 'wrong reasons'. You're trying to justify restricting the vote to people who you think are qualified, i.e., people who agree with your political views. If that's not fascism I don't know what is.

Good news: that's not fascism.

And yes, I believe in restricting the vote based on political views. That's also what you believe and what the founders of the US Constitution believed. The question is not whether that is a good idea, but on which political views and what kind of political views is it right.

[CoccoBill]

Millions of people vote to have the government take from others and give to themselves. If I were to go into a rich lady's house and take 10% of her jewelry, I would be doing something most people consider wrong. But if I were to convince enough of my neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods to tell the government to do it for us, we would be "exercising our right." As we can see, a problem arises when we think of voting as a right granted merely being a person who exists. Western societies have injured themselves greatly by allowing a voting system where people behave in unjust ways.

You bring up a good point here but seem to miss what it was. In the first example a single person decides something without majority consent, that is unjust. In the latter the decision is justified, if the majority agrees to it. Democracy in a nutshell. If the majority agrees that something is morally justified, then by definition it is. Somebody's jewelry has to go to pay for the roads and the army, I happen to think it's justified to take from each according to their ability rather than from each equally, since not everybody has jewelry.

To apply this to "people voting for the wrong reasons," if somebody doesn't work and votes to have people who do work pay more so he can have more welfare, no, he should not be allowed to vote. The degree to which we can create standards regarding voting rights that reflect this is a question. Discarding votes due to what they are is definitely not an answer, in case you thought that's one place I was going. My best (simple) solution involves basing the right to vote on tax status, or something to that effect.

Plutocracy in a nutshell.

[wufwugy]

You bring up a good point here but seem to miss what it was. In the first example a single person decides something without majority consent, that is unjust. In the latter the decision is justified, if the majority agrees to it. Democracy in a nutshell. If the majority agrees that something is morally justified, then by definition it is. Somebody's jewelry has to go to pay for the roads and the army, I happen to think it's justified to take from each according to their ability rather than from each equally, since not everybody has jewelry.

Then let's change it to only three people exist: me, my buddy, and jewelry lady, and we take her jewelry.

Also when you say the latter decision is justified, do you think the same about making Bill Gates eat mud, since that was come to through the same hypothetical "majority rules".

Plutocracy in a nutshell.

The originators of modern democracy and the republic never envisioned nor accounted for high taxes or welfarism. They likewise, at least in the states, did not envision the corruption of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Vote eligibility being dependent upon net tax payment is certainly not a perfect solution, but the reason why is because it doesn't completely eliminate corruption and other problems. As long as we exist within a system where rights and principles have been corrupted by government policy and ruling, we have to figure out a way to counter it. If we don't, we'll be left with what we have: an ever increasing deterioration of the growth of productivity in commerce, character, and culture.

[Poopadoop]

My "disenchanted" view of democracy is no different than your disenchanted view of letting students write their own grades.

There's nothing even remotely comparable in these two things.

[Poopadoop]

Regardless, we can certainly do much better than the system we have now, which is one that rewards unjust voting behavior.

Explain what 'unjust voting behavior' is and how the system rewards it please.