Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[Woodsman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Since we're dreaming out loud here, I'd happily support this proposal so long as it is accompanied by an exemption from taxation, jury service and selective service/conscription until the full rights of citizenship are granted upon reaching that magical age of wisdom and sagacity. Surely we'd see lower taxes and less foreign adventurism under that regime.

Then again, under such a gerontocracy we would have lost out on the contributions of young people like George Washington who was in his early 20s when he was given command of the Virginia Regiment following the death of Gen. Braddock. Then there was that mush headed youngster Sam Adams who was in his mid-20s when first elected to office. Notorious marijuana cultivator Thos. Jefferson was a mere 26 years of age when first elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and that slacker Andrew Jackson was 29 when he was elected as Tennessee's first congressman.

You'll recall the old saw "never trust anyone over thirty." It's been 20+ years since I saw life through the eyes of a 30 year old and I still don't trust the geezers. The "economic, moral and political" events of the past several years have given me no reason to abandon this belief.

[Forrest]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

For my money, the only way to have a responsible voter of any age is for them to have skin in the game, and knowledge of the game.

Simply having achieved the vaunted age of responsibility to drink at 21 is not, in my mind, sufficient for responsibility for our nation's future.

Put the franchise to those that serve the state, making it a requirement for every high school graduate to serve, either in the National Guard, or regular Military for two years after high school, and make sure the children, (since it is a rare 18 year old that can even think from A to B to C) have to pass a 1960's civics exam...you know, before all the rewriting of history started. As for those that don't bother with high school, keep them from being involved in the goverment.

[cjppjc]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

There is alot of elitist talk here about who should be allowed to vote.


First they wouldn't let the ???? vote. I didn't speak out because I wasn't ????
Next they wouldn't let the ???? vote. I didn't speak out because I wasn't ????
Then they wouldn't let me vote. And there was nobody left to speak out for my right to vote.

[World Traveler]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Agree with with cjppjc. Voting restrictions are a new talking point churned out by neo-conservative think tanks.

One look at the audience at the Republican convention tells the story, middle-aged and older and very white. Restrictions a way to ensure more voters are middle-aged whites, at a time when the demographics of the U.S. are rapidly changing to more minorities (especially Hispanics) who tend to vote Democrat.

It's a rear-guard action to blunt all this implies. Voter id laws are merely the first round, in what will be a continuing skirmish about who can vote over the next few years. In the end it's a losing batle (over 50% of babies born in U.S. last year were of minority origin).

To paraphrase the election ads "I'm middle-aged white and I do not support voter restriction laws".

[Raz]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Agree with with cjppjc. Voting restrictions are a new talking point churned out by neo-conservative think tanks.

One look at the audience at the Republican convention tells the story, middle-aged and older and very white. Restrictions a way to ensure more voters are middle-aged whites, at a time when the demographics of the U.S. are rapidly changing to more minorities (especially Hispanics) who tend to vote Democrat.

It's a rear-guard action to blunt all this implies. Voter id laws are merely the first round, in what will be a continuing skirmish about who can vote over the next few years. In the end it's a losing batle (over 50% of babies born in U.S. last year were of minority origin).

To paraphrase the election ads "I'm middle-aged white and I do not support voter restriction laws".

First off, Neocons are NOT conservative. They only fake it while they start wars and spend money like Democrats.

But of course, all conservatives - especially any who also happen to be Republicans - are racists who only want to suppress minority voting.
Actually, what they want to suppress is fraud.

Voter fraud is real. As Mayor Daily of Chicago (corruption Ground Zero) once said, "Vote early and vote often".

You must show ID to cash a check, buy liquor, drive an automobile, obtain unemployment benefits, and a dozen other transactions or tasks in everyday life.
How is producing your identification at the polling place descriminatory or suppressive?

[lektrode]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

How is producing your identification at the polling place descriminatory or suppressive?

because merely being asked for ID is 'suppressive' ?

meanwhile getting groped and irradiated at the airports is somehow OK, since we wouldnt want to 'profile' anybody...

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Voter fraud is real. As Mayor Daily of Chicago (corruption Ground Zero) once said, "Vote early and vote often".

You must show ID to cash a check, buy liquor, drive an automobile, obtain unemployment benefits, and a dozen other transactions or tasks in everyday life.
How is producing your identification at the polling place descriminatory or suppressive?

+1

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Since we're dreaming out loud here, I'd happily support this proposal so long as it is accompanied by an exemption from taxation, jury service and selective service/conscription until the full rights of citizenship are granted upon reaching that magical age of wisdom and sagacity. Surely we'd see lower taxes and less foreign adventurism under that regime.

Then again, under such a gerontocracy we would have lost out on the contributions of young people like George Washington who was in his early 20s when he was given command of the Virginia Regiment following the death of Gen. Braddock. Then there was that mush headed youngster Sam Adams who was in his mid-20s when first elected to office. Notorious marijuana cultivator Thos. Jefferson was a mere 26 years of age when first elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and that slacker Andrew Jackson was 29 when he was elected as Tennessee's first congressman.

You'll recall the old saw "never trust anyone over thirty." It's been 20+ years since I saw life through the eyes of a 30 year old and I still don't trust the geezers. The "economic, moral and political" events of the past several years have given me no reason to abandon this belief.

That's why I don't really support age as a criterion for voting. Age has little to do with how responsible or well-informed you are, and that correlation changes over time. Here's a question: do you support being allowed to vote at age 18 or older and being prohibited from voting at age 17 or younger?

There is no magical age; voting rights should be allowed on a case-by-case basis. How exactly that is determined is quite a tricky matter, but my basic minimum criterion would be that you must understand the Constitution to a reasonable degree.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

There is alot of elitist talk here about who should be allowed to vote.


First they wouldn't let the ???? vote. I didn't speak out because I wasn't ????
Next they wouldn't let the ???? vote. I didn't speak out because I wasn't ????
Then they wouldn't let me vote. And there was nobody left to speak out for my right to vote.

I advocate more stringent standards for voting and I don't do so out of any form of elitism. I understand the Constitution to a reasonable degree, and what I really want is for all fellow voters to have the same understanding of the founding legal document of the country which is where all political power in this country must be channeled through.

If you think the voting system is fine the way it is, then you already support very widespread voting restrictions. Since the principle of voting restrictions is enshrined in our current system, we should be free to discuss the degree to which people are restricted or enabled to vote without being called elitist or racist by morons who don't understand a single issue about the topic.

[llanlad2]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I advocate more stringent standards for voting and I don't do so out of any form of elitism. I understand the Constitution to a reasonable degree, and what I really want is for all fellow voters to have the same understanding of the founding legal document of the country which is where all political power in this country must be channeled through.

.

Have you ever looked up the definition of elitist? You obviously don't have the same understanding of it as me. Consequently based on my definition of elitism it you are not qualified to be contributing to this discussion.

[Raz]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Have you ever looked up the definition of elitist? You obviously don't have the same understanding of it as me. Consequently based on my definition of elitism it you are not qualified to be contributing to this discussion.

I would be most interested in reading your definition of an elitist.

[llanlad2]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I would be most interested in reading your definition of an elitist.

But that was my point. No one can argue with the definition of what it means to be "18". When you start bringing other criteria into it besides age pretty soon you won't have a democracy.
This whole voting thing is a red herring. The problem isn't the voters it's the choice of people to vote for. No amount of intelligence/experience would help you decide who is the best candidate in the next election. They ALL stink.
Now if you had rules on who could become a politician I might be more sympathetic.
For example 1. You've had a real job before. (not as a politician)
2. You understand a balance sheet.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

But that was my point. No one can argue with the definition of what it means to be "18". When you start bringing other criteria into it besides age pretty soon you won't have a democracy.
This whole voting thing is a red herring. The problem isn't the voters it's the choice of people to vote for. No amount of intelligence/experience would help you decide who is the best candidate in the next election. They ALL stink.
Now if you had rules on who could become a politician I might be more sympathetic.
For example 1. You've had a real job before. (not as a politician)
2. You understand a balance sheet.

I suspect the Supreme Court would declare this an infringement of the 1st Amendment right to free speech. Making you an elitist :-)

[llanlad2]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I suspect the Supreme Court would declare this an infringement of the 1st Amendment right to free speech. Making you an elitist :-)

I was just illustrating it's the choices not the choosers who are a greater issue.

I read today that 25 of the top 100 UK companies have even donated money to the current US election campaign helping to guarantee a victory for large corporations and vested interests worldwide no matter which Republicrat gets in.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I was just illustrating it's the choices not the choosers who are a greater issue.

I read today that 25 of the top 100 UK companies have even donated money to the current US election campaign helping to guarantee a victory for large corporations and vested interests worldwide no matter which Republicrat gets in.

It's both the choices and the choosers, IMO, but you have to be careful that the "cure" isn't worse than the "disease". Thus my suggestion of a mandatory "None of the Above" option for every ballot. After a few elections result in "None of the Above" winning, parties would have to start being accountable to the voters again and give us better candidates than the FIRE puppets they've been stuffing down our throats for so long.

And a basic civics test for voters, the same test that immigrants take to become citizens. While not a perfect solution, it would help ensure that voters have at least a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution without setting the bar so high or the gate so narrow as to be discriminitory. The test could be administered at any DMV office where people take their driving tests. If people don't have ID, then that's a perfect time and place to get their ID so they can show it when they vote.