Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I'm still not entirely sold on the concept of a test. I would prefer something much more rigid and difficult to change, rather than something that would require regular updating such as a test which includes any level of current events subject matter. A test must be created and updated from time to time, which in turn means that people in relevant authority must sit down and create it. There would inevitably be present the incentive to create questions to entrench the incumbent ideology or political party, just as you see the incentives to rewrite history in textbooks to conform to various schoolboard ideologies or the whims of the authors.

Your point about needing to follow up with civic-minded activity is well-taken, but there will never be a perfect solution. Perfection is the enemy of the "good enough".

Being of a "constrained" viewpoint, I would go one further and say that there is no such thing as a solution. There are only tradeoffs. I would tradeoff the present system for some alternatives, but probably not for a system that placed large emphasis on a test requirement for citizenship.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Corporations are not people. By your logic, we're all red blood cells, because we're composed of red blood cells.

Neither do corporations behave like people: they don't go to jail, they don't die of natural causes, they have no conscience or morals, etc etc.

I have never stated that corporations are people, not even close. Answer the questions, c1ue.

And for the record, your examples of the differences between people and corporations are piss-poor: corporations are indeed subject to law and punishment, they do "die of natural causes" economically speaking, and they do adhere to their own internal doctrines. Again, just so it sinks in, I am not saying that corporations are people.

Yes, I do consider money equivalent to votes - not voting. Money buys votes.

Are you seriously going to disagree with this statement?

And while money will not buy my vote, the reality is that it will buy someone's votes.

To say that because the former statement is true and thus the latter statement is true is a logical fallacy.

Well you are factually wrong about money being equivalent to votes because you can't vote for money, at least directly, and neither can you purchase votes by paying some money price for them. Like any other transaction, there are methods of exchange and where you see "money buys votes" and probably that "votes buy money," those are not true reflections of the intricacies of what happen.

As you said, your vote is not bought. So you seem to be arguing in favor of something that doesn't affect you at all directly, since you are allegedly immune to political advertising. Why are you trying to "protect" people from political advertising? What's wrong with letting people make up their own minds? Hell, why don't you just decide what they should consider when voting, or just vote for them? Should people also be protected and insulated from commercial advertising? Maybe they should be insulated from social advertising as well, with regulations on the number of Facebook friends and how many organizations they can join?

It's one thing to make fraud illegal. It's quite another to nullify the First Amendment to entrench incumbent ideology which is exactly what current campaign finance laws do.

The problem with trying to identify an 'informed, responsible citizen' is that this is exactly the excuse used innumerable times to disenfranchise those of inimicable political leanings. Because it is so very easy to manipulate the definition of informed and/or responsible.

If the problem is money is distorting the views of the 'uninformed' or 'irresponsible', why not just remove the money? Far easier to remove the money than the other side of the equation.

I'm fully aware of the difficulty in identifying a better system of voting, hence my reluctance to endorse a concrete proposal. Yet you and I fundamentally agree on a certain point: certain people should not have equal say in the political process. This is why you propose preventing people from being influenced by monied interests, and why I believe there should be higher standards for voting than a pulse.

To answer your questions directly: removing money in an attempt to prevent it from influencing necessarily ignorant citizens does nothing to address the existence of woefully ignorant citizens voting. What you call easy evidently doesn't actually work, since money has "bought" votes in every election ever despite various degrees of campaign finance laws.

Personally I don't see why you have such a problem with it, or why you are more interested in removing potential voters rather than removing pernicious influences on voters.

My take on the issue we fundamentally agree on, that some people should not have an equal say in political matters, stems from my acknowledgement of reality. There will always be what you describe as pernicious influences on the political process. People inherently tend to seek to enhance their own standing; that is human nature. This is why communism fails, and why republicanism gets captured. It's why a naked democracy is the most dangerous form of government in the world. This is why any change should be considered very carefully, and once considered very carefully it should be encapsulated and made highly resilient to the whims of the masses.

Frankly though, I would much rather have monied interests have more influence in the direction of politics in a relatively market-based country than other types of interests in that same country because wealth accumulation in market-based countries fundamentally represents a combination of long-term societal contribution and luck. It is a kind of "lesser-bad" of the available tradeoffs, and superior to "keep money out" approaches to democratic systems because of the immediate tendency to "vote off more than one can chew," so to speak.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I have never stated that corporations are people, not even close. Answer the questions, c1ue.

The specific argument used by the Supreme Court in Citizens United was to overturn a previous precedent that corporations are not people: Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The means of overturning the previous Supreme Court decision was a nebulous invocation of a protection of free speech - irregardless of the entity making it.

Thus to say that you are not arguing that corporations are people is false - because the specific SCOTUS ruling explicitly overrode such a previous distinction.

And for the record, your examples of the differences between people and corporations are piss-poor: corporations are indeed subject to law and punishment, they do "die of natural causes" economically speaking, and they do adhere to their own internal doctrines. Again, just so it sinks in, I am not saying that corporations are people.

Wrong, corporations do not have a limited lifespan dictated by biological reality. The 'death' you speak of is always a function of outside factors - i.e. there are no natural limitations on the lifetime of a corporation. The same is not true of a human being - any human being.

Corporations also can be punished, but they cannot be executed. They cannot go to jail. They cannot even be 'captured' in a physical sense.

Well you are factually wrong about money being equivalent to votes because you can't vote for money, at least directly, and neither can you purchase votes by paying some money price for them. Like any other transaction, there are methods of exchange and where you see "money buys votes" and probably that "votes buy money," those are not true reflections of the intricacies of what happen.

As you said, your vote is not bought. So you seem to be arguing in favor of something that doesn't affect you at all directly, since you are allegedly immune to political advertising. Why are you trying to "protect" people from political advertising? What's wrong with letting people make up their own minds? Hell, why don't you just decide what they should consider when voting, or just vote for them? Should people also be protected and insulated from commercial advertising? Maybe they should be insulated from social advertising as well, with regulations on the number of Facebook friends and how many organizations they can join?

It's one thing to make fraud illegal. It's quite another to nullify the First Amendment to entrench incumbent ideology which is exactly what current campaign finance laws do.

Sorry, but your ideological posturing is still false.

When the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written, there were no corporations. There cannot be in any sense any 'naturally' justifiable reason why said Bill of Rights/Constitution must apply to a legal fiction.

As for money and votes - you still are trying to talk your way out of fact.

Does money buy votes? Does spending large sums of money yield political representation? The answer to both is unequivocably yes.

As for advertising - this is frankly irrelevant. Advertising for commercial purposes is a purely commercial matter - however advertising for governance purposes is a governmental matter. Your arguments about insulation are also frankly irrelevant and goofy.

Government regulation insulates us from all manner of 'freedoms': the freedom to be robbed, the freedom to be defrauded, the freedom to be poisoned, the freedom to be threatened, etc etc.

But by all means continue trying to apply a set of laws for people to a legal fiction.

I think it is amusing and entirely indicative.

Yet you and I fundamentally agree on a certain point: certain people should not have equal say in the political process.

Categorically rejected. I don't say anyone should not have equal say - I am in fact saying everyone should have equal say.

The ability of one person to influence millions of others via money is not equal say.

My take on the issue we fundamentally agree on, that some people should not have an equal say in political matters, stems from my acknowledgement of reality.

No, your take stems from your fundamental belief that you know better than anyone else, as do I.

The difference between me and you is that I don't assume that my belief is correct.

You believe that if everyone were 'right thinking' like you, that they would act like you.

I guarantee you that this is a wrong belief.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Yet again you are factually incorrect in virtually every contention you've made. Even as you explained the SCOTUS ruling, you concluded incorrectly! The plain truth is that it is a violation of the principle of free speech to prevent people or voluntary associations of people to speak freely.

While you assume that I am some sort of anarchist, I actually have no problem with curtailing the "freedoms" you list in negative connotations. I do believe in the rule of law, just not the tyranny of law.

Commercial advertising isn't irrelevant to this discussion at all. People can be seriously injured on dirt bikes just as they can be seriously injured as an indirect result of their votes. People become poor by spending their money rather than investing, yet people also become poor indirectly by their votes as well. In principle you think people aren't capable of making the "right" choices so you want to "protect" people from loud voices asking them to vote one way or another, but you don't care if they achieve similar results through other means?

No, your take stems from your fundamental belief that you know better than anyone else, as do I.

The difference between me and you is that I don't assume that my belief is correct.

You believe that if everyone were 'right thinking' like you, that they would act like you.

I guarantee you that this is a wrong belief.

That is not true in the slightest. I acknowledge reality whereas you are far more prone to come up with what your beloved behavioral psychologists might call shortcutting. The reality is that it is extremely dangerous to general and individual prosperity, notions of fairness or equality, and even safety for democracy to exist unfettered. A simple thought experiment offers some insight into this: what would be the result if elections for every office were held every single day? The fact that presidential elections are held every four years doesn't change the principle that the whims of the people, once disconnected from their means, are potentially devastating to things like living standards and equality of opportunity. The "tyranny of the majority" is a very real possibility with significant historic precedent.

The ability of one person to influence millions of others via money is not equal say.

This is a prime example where you fail to acknowledge reality. There will never be "equal say" using your metrics, because influence will always exist. Do you really want equal say? If so, are you willing to support regulations requiring that political posts on peoples' Facebooks reach an identical quantity of people, regardless of their friends list size? Are you going to ban front lawn signs supporting various candidates because they don't reach an equal number of people depending upon the neighborhood? Would you make it illegal for celebrities to voice their political opinions?

Assuming you are only in favor of limiting "really rich" people from donating without limits and that you support some arbitrary metric for determining donations on some arbitrary basis, then that is at least a bit realistic. But who are you to decide where the arbitrary limits are? This is the money that belongs to the donar, so under what principle can you possibly justify preventing them from spending their money how they see fit? Even if you can justify it in principle in your own mind, what metric would you use to determine the completely arbitrary limits? Is donating $5,000 to a candidate too much? What about $500? That seems like a lot of money to donate to a candidate, especially for people of very modest means. In fact, there are plenty of families and individuals that couldn't even scrape together $5 to donate--maybe the limit should be there?

"Removing money from politics" does not work in practice and there is no reason why it should work in principle either. It makes the fundamentally pretense that "the problem" is that "money buys votes," when all money actually does is add influence to vote one way or the other. But all schemes of "removing money from politics" fail to address the actual disease, which is the easily-influenced voter that allows himself or herself to get "bought," using your parlance. You could completely eliminate all forms of political advertising, the ultimate "remove money from politics" policy, and you'd still be left with the same fundamental situation and have imperceptible differences in outcomes. Even if there were to be a difference in outcome, there is absolutely no reason to suspect it would be a "better" difference--"common wisdom" is a two-edged sword.

The simple reality is that political advertising is only information. It's good information, bad information, or indifferent, but all it is is information. It may be intended to influence people to vote one way or the other, but that choice is still in the hands of the voters. Money in politics is not the "problem" (your parlance), it is the people who are "bought" (again using your parlance).

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Yet again you are factually incorrect in virtually every contention you've made. Even as you explained the SCOTUS ruling, you concluded incorrectly! The plain truth is that it is a violation of the principle of free speech to prevent people or voluntary associations of people to speak freely.

Sorry, I'm not.

You're extrapolating from your own interpretation of the Bill of Rights 'Freedom of Speech'.

What I cited above is literally what the Supreme Court cited in the Citizens United case: that previously the Supreme Court had ruled that a corporation could not enjoy freedom of speech, but that this previous decision was overruled.

The Supreme Court of the United States by our laws is the final arbiter on the interpretation of the Constitution - not you.

That is not true in the slightest. I acknowledge reality whereas you are far more prone to come up with what your beloved behavioral psychologists might call shortcutting. The reality is that it is extremely dangerous to general and individual prosperity, notions of fairness or equality, and even safety for democracy to exist unfettered. A simple thought experiment offers some insight into this: what would be the result if elections for every office were held every single day? The fact that presidential elections are held every four years doesn't change the principle that the whims of the people, once disconnected from their means, are potentially devastating to things like living standards and equality of opportunity. The "tyranny of the majority" is a very real possibility with significant historic precedent.

At last the truth comes out. You fear that democracy will actually be democratic.

Above illustrates that you think 'freedom' is only acceptable if you get what you want.

This is a prime example where you fail to acknowledge reality. There will never be "equal say" using your metrics, because influence will always exist. Do you really want equal say? If so, are you willing to support regulations requiring that political posts on peoples' Facebooks reach an identical quantity of people, regardless of their friends list size? Are you going to ban front lawn signs supporting various candidates because they don't reach an equal number of people depending upon the neighborhood? Would you make it illegal for celebrities to voice their political opinions?

Sorry, you can keep arguing all you want.

Someone who spends millions to buy votes does not have equal say.

The point of one person, one vote is that the maximum benefit as well as the maximum damage from any one person is clearly defined and limited; that only the accumulation of many votes will determine the course of the United States.

You clearly believe in 'separate but equal' - a Jim Crow vote.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

You clearly believe in 'separate but equal' - a Jim Crow vote.

c1ue, "separate but equal" is democracy in action. The tyranny of the majority is a very real threat. The closer you get to the individual person (meaning state instead of federal, county instead of state, city or municipality instead of county), the more democratic you become, which lends itself towards potential disaster.

At last the truth comes out. You fear that democracy will actually be democratic.

Above illustrates that you think 'freedom' is only acceptable if you get what you want.

"Freedom" is not my primary value; liberty is. Democracy is a direct threat to liberty, and pure democracy leaves room for absolutely zero liberty.

Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable, though in practice it is communism and fascism that have been empirically worse with their spectacular costs to human life and wellbeing. Only a republic which resists the whims of its population to an extent can be considered in the league of "good governance," while every other system is fundamentally flawed. It is in democracies, communist oligarchies, and dictatorships where the rule of law is used against people to the benefit of the politically powerful, while it is in republics where the rule of law is used to protect people against tyranny.

"One person, one vote" is far too close to democracy than I consider to be safe for prosperity and liberty. Empirically, the founding fathers agreed writ large with the notion that democracy is horrible--that's why they gave us mostly a republic while denouncing democracy. Additionally, it would seem that there is at least some acknowledgement of the danger of democracy because we retain many republican traditions, including the fact that we don't actually have a "one person, one vote" system, unless you consider my 5 month old to not be a person. Convicted felons and both "legal" and "illegal" aliens are also people, yet unable to vote. Trends towards democracy are inherently dangerous because the whims of the public, who are by absolute necessity quite ignorant on numerous matters of government, are fickle and prone to things like what you worry about--money buying influence. That is why I and numerous of the founding fathers do not support democracy or trends towards it. There can be such things as balance and moderation in terms of how democratic a system of government is.

[Woodsman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Why not just go back to the good old days and limit the franchise to white male Anglo Saxon property owners. Maybe we can throw in a religious test and a literacy test, too? The 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments just don't seem to be working out, because clearly it's the voters and citizens who are the source of our problems.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Way to make a beautiful strawman. Are you c1ue's protege?

Well you're partially correct in your last sentence. People are the sources of all non-natural "problems" and all non-natural "solutions" if you believe in such things in socio-political or socio-economic discourses, because only people can act. The only other source of change is nature, though the effects of drought and tides pale in comparison to the effects of loud special interests.

I didn't mention any of those Amendments except the 26th, and yes the 26th has not quite worked out very well. Neither has the 17th. I have no inherent problems with the Amendments that allowed people to vote regardless of sex or race, of course. That doesn't mean I don't support standards for voting.

Since you evidently support the 26th Amendment, would you support a new Amendment to lower the voting age to 16? To 14? To 6 years old? I think that even you would acknowledge the need for standards when determining who can vote. Whereas you may be comfortable with allowing children to vote (and at 18 years old, many people are still children), I am not. I am also not in favor of allowing people to vote who lack any significant understanding of the Constitution. What makes your standard for voting better than my standard?

[Woodsman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Sir, I'm no one's protege. And as for building strawmen, I can't decide which is the better example of the practice - your backhanded compliment regarding human agency or the quip on children voting.

I'll leave you the last word, since it's quite evident to me you've achieved an impenetrable degree of certainty on this matter.

[lektrode]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

aw come on, mr woodsman - this was just getting good!

[Woodsman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Something tells me Lek, you were one of those kids in the playground standing in the circle yelling "fight, fight, fight."

[lektrode]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

not me, Woodsman - i just like to watch (learn from) the battle of the intellects - tho i dont enjoy it when its gets personal/verbally-textually violent

sorry if i gave the impression of egging-on that type of exchange.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Sir, I'm no one's protege. And as for building strawmen, I can't decide which is the better example of the practice - your backhanded compliment regarding human agency or the quip on children voting.

I'll leave you the last word, since it's quite evident to me you've achieved an impenetrable degree of certainty on this matter.

I think the tone of my response was on the conservative side of what was warranted given your implication that I supported the repeal of numerous Amendments that I have no fundamental problem with. It is true though, that I think that enough "wrong people" are voting to propose adjustments to the existing system. I simply have no use for racial collectivism.

The matter of children voting is not just a matter of tongue-in-cheek rhetorical sparring. It is an illustrative example of the principle that standards for restricting people from voting are not just appropriate but already widely supported. Why is the voting age not set at 16 in this country, when it is common for people of that age to take their lives and the lives of others in their hands in the operation of motor vehicles? Why not 17 with parents' permission or 18 without, which is the same age restriction for military service? People are children for a very long period of time in many cases--sometimes you will meet 14 year olds who are not children, but in our infantilizing society it is more common to see 25 year olds who are still children in most non-physical attributes than to see even 18 year olds who you would be hard-pressed to describe as children. I am glad at least that the voting age is not lower, but simply setting the bar there is not conducive to maintaining a republic. Simply surviving to 18 years of age (or 21 previously) is insufficient, in my view, to have a say in matters of governance.

The principle that people should be restricted from voting for various reasons has significant precedence and very broad support, depending on the level of restriction. It is my view that the ability to vote for representation should be earned and not bestowed.

[Raz]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

My wife once told me that she has little regard for most of the opinions of anyone under the age of thirty.
It sounded harsh at the time but now I not only see her point - I agree with it. (Not opinions about food or furniture but specifically in matters economic, moral and political.)

For good reason the founders limited the age of eligibility for the presidency to 35 years and for senators the age of thirty.
Personally, I think the drinking age should be left to the states, or lowered to 18, and the voting age raised to thirty.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

My wife once told me that she has little regard for most of the opinions of anyone under the age of thirty.
It sounded harsh at the time but now I not only see her point - I agree with it. (Not opinions about food or furniture but specifically in matters economic, moral and political.)

For good reason the founders limited the age of eligibility for the presidency to 35 years and for senators the age of thirty.
Personally, I think the drinking age should be left to the states, or lowered to 18, and the voting age raised to thirty.

Now we're talkin'!