BS: Should everyone vote?

Subject: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:24 PM

In the past I'd always thought that the more people who voted – the better. That the more people who voted – the better the cross-section of people's opinions that would decide who was elected, what bond bills were passed,ect. Now I'm beginning to think that is a little naive. Recently our local paper showed that Texas has a terrible record on the number of women who vote. Basically – very few do. And very few of them even knew that an election was being held according to polls held on election days. And I started thinking – "Why should I care" ?



It's not that I don't want women to vote. It's not a gender thing. The question is – do we want folks voting – male or female – that can't be bothered to even know that there is an election being held that day? Let alone having enough interest to find out about the candidates and the issues. If they can't be bothered – why should we care? Idealistically if everyone got involved and got informed the electorate really would be the voice of the people. But that isn't going to happen. And I'm beginning to think that's a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:28 PM

People who feel disenfranchised don't vote. Is anyone the least bit surprised that a majority of women in the sexist state of Texas might feel disenfranchised, like low status women everywhere?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:29 PM

Interesting questions, Wesley. My first reaction is "of course!" But, put the way you have, I am not sure. It points to a long time need for more education, I think. Not sure if anyone cares enough to rbing it about, though. I have been reading that the GOP may lose a lot of the Christian Nationalists' vote as they may stay home in protest against Foleygate...one can hope, at least.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:31 PM

When someone enters a voting both, make 'em solve a quadratic equation or answer some other question that shows they know one end of a pencil from another. If they can't do it, zip! down the ol' oubliette. If they succeed, they get to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,KB
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:42 PM

If you don't know something about the issues and the candidates you should not vote. You could wind up voting for someone you would detest if you knew their positions. You still have the right but it is a right that should be used wisely. It often is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:46 PM

If in doubt, vote against.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:46 PM

Hence the political duopoly partnering with global conglomerates, and destroying all life as we know it.

But hey, that's progress for you.

I'm sure if you vote for Democrats instead of Republicans, everything will be just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:49 PM

Compulsury voting, on paper, and in person unless you have a very good reason, and with a 'None of the above' option gets my vote.

Easy to recount, and harder to commit fraud with than other mechanisms.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:54 PM

I don't think voting should be compulsory - people who were not interested would put a cross just anywhere so as not to get into trouble. But if you do care, and you don't agree with any of the candidates, what should you do (other than standing yourself)?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,same guest
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:57 PM

Yes, a 'none of the above' option would be good.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,12:46
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:08 PM

None of the above isn't really an option. Having the guts to vote for a third party is though.

Most people are so conformist and fearful of being branded as "crazy" for voting outside the box, it is pathetic.

You get the government you deserve by continuing to vote for the duopoly.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:31 PM

People don't vote.

Two ways to look at it.

It is their fault.

It is the system's fault.

Politiicans prefer the former.
That should make you suspicious.

The people who get elected have a vested interest in the system.
As far as they are concerned the system works.
Why would they want to complicate things by coming up with successful strategies to get more people to vote?

When you decide that you don't care whether people vote, they win.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:40 PM

Here in MN, where there is a long history of public candidate debates leading up to the elections, only a handful of incumbents have agreed to participate in televised debates. This hiding by the political incumbents in MN is unprecedented, but does tell us something.

Congressional incumbents of both parties are afraid of voter wrath this year. Very, very afraid.

The duopoly is a system of institutionalized incumbency, serving global capitalist interests at the expense of the citizenry.

Now, y'all can keep voting to continue that system of malfeasant governance if you want. Delusion works for most folks, until it's THEIR job or THEIR backyard or THEIR car that blows up on them killing a few beloved family members.

Then their story changes.

The Mudcat Democrats, like Democrats everywhere, are bloody complacent, deluded, and fat middle class do-nothings that serve only THEIR corporate party masters.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: MMario
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:41 PM

I like the idea of a "none of the above" choice - and if that choice wins - then another election should be called - with none of the current candidates allowed to stand for that office - as they would already have been deemed unacceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:48 PM

I think something that really frustrates me is when I meet someone who says that they won't register to vote because then they might be called for jury duty { here in the USA many areas get juries from lists of register voters}. Good Lord – if you are unwilling to be on a jury – or too stupid to get out of jury duty – then I'm not sure I want you voting anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: lady penelope
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 03:50 PM

In Britain you get called for jury duty from the council tax register. So it doesn't matter if you don't vote.

I think the reason why people don't vote should be looked at.

Mostly, I think people don't vote because they see politics as being removed from their day to day lives. That it's nothing really to do with them. Politics is often seen as something only those who are intellectually inclined and/or rich get involved in.

There was recently a public information 'ad' on British television. It was an animation of two blokes having a conversation in a pub and one says to the other "Oh, I don't do politics" the rest of the 'ad' is taken up by the other bloke stopping 'he who doesn't do politics' every time he made a comment on the state of roads, public transport, water supply etc. etc. by saying "I thought you didn't do politics?"

I think we need to teach people from an earlier age than we currently do, how government is supposed to work for us, not around us.

Mind you, it also needs to be hammered home that if you don't vote you shouldn't bother complaining. If you excuse yourself from the decision making process at the start, why should you be included later?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 04:25 PM

I agree with Mmario.

If 60% say none of the above then the election should be rerun with new candidates.

It might discourage politicians from overspending too as elections are an expensive process.

Perhaps this view will not stand up to rigorous scrutiny, but t offers food for thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: number 6
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 04:32 PM

Good post lady Penelope ... I most certainly agree with you.

"I think people don't vote because they see politics as being removed from their day to day lives"

Voting and communicating your concerns/issues with you local elected representatives at all government levels is a democratic right that not enough people take avantage of here in Canada.

Don't leave it up to the press to air the concerns of the people to the government.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM

MMario's right. Only if "none of the above wins" not only must there be a whole new slate of candidates, they also have to have completely new platforms to run on.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 05:05 PM

But since the only folks who could change that are the people in power who have the most to loose - I don't think it will ever happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 05:21 PM

I'd like the whole system better if we could call for a new election when things get so bad, BEFORE the regularly scheduled one, as I think they can do in the UK. I also like the "none of the above" idea.

Janet, you are so far off-base it makes me LMAO. If you truly believed anything you post, you'd be actively doing something other than slagging off on your computer at people you obviously hate and are not going to change, esp. with invective spews.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 07:43 PM

It might discourage politicians from overspending too as elections are an expensive process. Lox

Won't work. It's our money they're spending, not theirs.

How about if 'none of the above' wins, then the canidates who stood have to pay for the whole election themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 08:16 PM

I've sometimes thought it'd work better if you could vote directly against candidates, as well as for them.

Every vote against you would cancel out a vote for you. If more people voted against you than for you, you'd be out.

It'd give an incentive to people to go along and vote even if they weren't too keen on anyone. In which case they'd cast their vote against, but not their vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Gurney
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 09:38 PM

There are largely two kinds of voters here:

Those who vote against the incumbents.
Those who don't vote "because it only encourages the bastards."

I wonder if we'll ever get a government for whom the majority of electors voted?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:58 AM

A factor, minor perhaps, that favors trying to get more people to vote comes from the requirement that both major parties (in a more or less two party climate) must be so close to the "middle of the road" that random voters are likely to split about equally between them. This allows a consolidated small group of voters with "an agenda" to swing the net result to give their separate "cluster vote" substantially greater impact than is proportional to their real numbers.

The general rule of thumb is that any 15% of the voters who can manage to "all vote together" can carry any election. (I'm told that the "big boys" who rule the corporations consider owning 15% of the stock as generally a "controlling interest," provided there isn't another stockholder or very cohesive bloc that has 16%.)

By having more numbnut pick-and-check random voters actually showing up at the poll booths, it at least requires a slightly larger group of "issue nuts" to get the "magic 15%" to swing the result, especially as a "popular" few issues is more likely to bring forth a competing bunch of issue voters.

In the recent vote in Kansas on the "marriage amendment" it appears that the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee effectively blocked the proposal, simply by tabling it, through three sessions of the Legislature; but allowed it to advance when the vote would come in an election when the only other thing on the ballot was election of Local School Committe representatives in only a third of the local districts. Nobody without a strong opinion and commitment (or stern instructions from their preachers) showed up, and the vote was carried by the wingnuts. Had it appeared when there were more general issues on the ballot, it is debatable whether it would have passed. Similar tactics have recently been used (successfully) by my County administrators to "manage" special interest votes so that they appear when general voter turnout is expected to be low.

Yes, probably everybody should vote, and they should be provided with "flippin' coins" when they enter the booths to make their random selections. The larger "random vote" does (usually) help to dilute the effectiveness of the radicals, and probably doesn't really hurt the real candidates.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 09:57 AM

Gurney, there've been plenty of goverments for which more than 50% of the elctorate have voted. Mainly in one party states, with compulsury voting though.....

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 11:58 AM

"Should everyone vote?"

If there is truth to the Diebold thing, then the only chance people have to prove that their votes don't matter is for NO ONE to vote. That's one helluva conundrum, ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: kendall
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:20 PM

Consider this. (And I've seen it with my own eyes)
Voting day is always on a weekday. Working people come home from a hard day and just don't bother to go out again to vote. If they could vote on Saturday or Sunday, or if voting day was a holiday, more working people would vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:23 PM

bingo! Many other countries hold their elections on the weekend.

If you want participation, you hold Saturday or Sunday elections.

If you want to suppress participation, you do it the American Way.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:24 PM

I remember hearing a reason why elections are on Tuesdays but I can't remember it right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:31 PM

Why Tuesdays . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 05:09 PM

The general concept of this thread sounds Republican. The Republicans know that a populist turnout will gut them, and all their talk shows and pundits are voicing a malaise similar to that expressed at the start of this thread. The Republicans want a suppressed turnout, because a big turnout will mean a purge of the fascists. And hopefully Texas is going to be a political slaughterhouse on election day. Texas is the key state on election day because this is where the national Spanish-owned superhighway system is going to be implemented first. And if they get away with it here, they'll be bringing it to your state, stealing your property, taxing you into bankruptcy just to communte to and from your slave-job. Hopefully, the election day turnout will be so big and so NOT in favor of the fascists, they won't be able to steal elections.

Rule of thumb nationwide...incumbents have to be kicked out. And make a fuss after you vote at the polls. Tell the people handling your vote that they're being WATCHED. Tell them you are going to half a dozen other sources to make your vote known (even if you're not). And talk to the exit pollers and make sure your disaffection is well-noted. This is the last semi-real election we're going to have. Electronic voting machines will determine elections (phony results) from here on out. So do a Liebermann on EVERYONE who works for the govt (unless it's Ron Paul or a handful of other constitutionalists).

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 06:36 PM

Shall we tell that last Guest how many non-Americans, and therefore probably not Republicans are about here, or do you think that would just spoil their fun?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: number 6
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 06:53 PM

"Working people come home from a hard day and just don't bother to go out again to vote."

... but we can get out to the mall, take their kids somewhere, jam, go get liquor, go out grocery shopping ... no excuse. We all have cars in Canada, U.S. (large majority do)... no excuse and the voting stations are usually in our ocommunities ... hell, you can usually walk to them.

Maybe that's the problem ... we haven't got the jam anymore.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:00 PM

"we haven't got the jam anymore."

Lots of folks have been buttered up by politicians then toasetd by the bastards. It's easy to lose faith after many decades of shit for people to run countries, provinces or states..

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: number 6
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:06 PM

Never lose the faith ... people have to take action

But it's pretty easy when our bellys are full, we have 900 channels on TV, internet forums .... maybe it easy to sit back, post our complaints while sitting at home, watching the press go on and on, and the big guys walk over us.

Your right ... why bother going out to vote .... the hell with having faith .... think I'll order in a pizza.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:09 PM

1) I have not missed voting except for once or twice in my life in ANY election.
2) I have been thrown in the slam a few times for anti-war protest.
3) I eat once a day except after long call-outs where we've worked hard and sweat lots.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: number 6
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:12 PM

Most people don't give a rat's ass, just say they do .... just complain while munchin on a balogna sandwich and sipping on a Starbucks.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:14 PM

Bill, I apologize for the shitty post.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: number 6
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:18 PM

Not shitty ... you posted a good point. I just feel ya gotta do something ... vote and let yourself be heard .... might not make a diff ... but one must try.

sIx .. Bill ... bill .... william.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:25 PM

I have the dubious record of only ever voting three times for the Party that won. Never once for a candidate that won.

Despite the feeling that I'd be better off making paper airplanes, I think that the trip to the polls is one of the more important things I'll ever do with my life. So I have to agree with you, sIx. I have written some pretty bad things on a few ballots: "If you're gonna 'screw' me with a selection of candidates like THIS, please kiss me first" or "You have GOT to be kidding." But I continue to go and will continue to go until such time as someone decides we no longer need elections. I expect that day is not as far off as we'd like to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:40 PM

Well, gol danged...

Now here's a subject that get's this ol' hillbilly hotter than a 3 dollar pistol...

No, not everyone should vote... Stupid people shouldn't have a right to vote or we run the risk of gettin' stupid people runnin' out country and startin' wars for entertainment sake... And exactly who is it that is so entertained by war, you ask??? Well...

...stupid people, that's who... You know 'um... Stupid people are everywhere... Hey, look, I just bought a new lawnmower and there are two pages of "CAUTIONs" tellin' folks not to eat the lawn mower, not to stick their feet under it when it runnin' and not to drink gasoline??? Like...

...duhhhhh??? No, I think we nedd to take the "CAUTIONs" outtta products and let the stupid people just go off to whereever stupid people got after drinking gasoline...

But seriously, the reason we have Bush in office, other than the crimes his handlers did to get him thefre, is because of people who think that 2 of the 3 branches of governemnt are NASCAR and Walmart... I don't think this is waht Thomas Jefferson or his pals had in mind for our democracy...

Hey, Tom Jefferson said that for democracy to be successfull it would take an informed electorate... There's something quite outta wack when we have folks in the South who believe that Jesus is going to come and kill off all the Christians and leave the Erath to the heathens yet these folks are allowed to vote??? Like I said... No, what Tom Jefferson said, "an informed electorate"... No place in the Bible does it say that Jesus is going to come and kill off all the believers yet you have these stupid people, who have the right (?) to vote believin' exactly that???

Hmmmmmmmmmm???

And these stupid people get to vote and that explains alot of why out country is on it's way down the tubes...

Like I said, take the "CAUTIONs" outta all these owners manuals and just let nature take it course...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 09:45 PM

One of the problems with "expressing your independence" by voting for a third party candidate was quite well expressed in a series of articles that I believe appeared in Scientific American ca 1980. The articles reported a number of computer similations of voting patterns and options - back when that was a new thing.

With a more or less two party system, it is necessary for both of the major parties to be close to "middle of the road" on most issues in order to have any chance of being elected.

In the abscence of a third choice, people would select from one or the other of the two.

Those who choose to vote for a third party candidate will nearly all come from the major party most like the third party, thus assuring that the "other major party" - i.e. the one least acceptable to the those who vote third party is going to win.

Better to vote for the best (or least bad) candidate who has a chance to win than to take your vote for him/her (away from the "lesser of the evils") and allow the "worst of the evils" to have it.

A vote for a third party candidate is effectively a vote for the candidate you like least.

In places where there actually are more than two choices with a realistic chance of winning the situation is very much different, but in the US "winner take all" system, voting for someone who can't win is just taking the vote from one you might accept and in effect giving your vote to the worst.

In the last US presidential election, there is some evidence that (at least) one of the major parties actively solicited and encouraged "reluctant" third party candidates whom they expected would take votes from their major party real opponents, as a method of assuring their own win in specific areas. It appears to be a very well known and frequently used (surreptitious) method in local and regional elections. A common method is for a strong candidate, usually an incumbent, who is facing a real challenge to find an "unknown benefactor" to suddenly give support to a marginal third candidate, and then campaign that "#3 is just like #2 only better," thereby splitting the votes that #2 might have gotten.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Old Guy
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 11:11 PM

The Democrats have it by a mile. No Problem. Not to worry.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: OtherDave
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:18 AM

The basic premise of a democracy is that adults can vote -- not that they have to.

Hindrances (in the U.S.) include:

-- The sorry state of civic education ("how a bill becomes law" never seems to involve lobbyists, contractors, or constituents who don't want to see the helicopter-blade factory close).

-- The relentless gerrymandering by whichever party's in power in a state, with the exception of places like Iowa, which has a nonpartisan commission charged with redrawing district lines after each census. (In the 2004 congressional election, I could scarcely find a congressional race outside of Iowa as competitive as the LEAST competitive of Iowa's.)

-- Pandering to the simplest elements in each party's base.

-- The overwhelming advantages of incumbency; in the 2004 congressional elections, only four incumbents who ran for re-election lost, a success rate greater than the old Supreme Soviet.

-- Neverending posturing by candidates criticizing "that government," as if it were an alien body rather than the post they lusted to belong to. (E.g., George Bush, asked about a topic he didn't want to talk about, said he'd received the report "from the bureaucracy," as if he hadn't sought to head that body.)

As for voting on Tuesday or Saturday -- why? The state of Oregon shifted to voting by mail, and in 2004 eighty-seven percent of registered voters voted.

You're always going to have stupid people, lazy people, venal people, single-issue people. I'd like a little more faith in the general electorate, and some help for them in terms of making information available sooner, in more forms, as well as making voting slightly more desireable than a trip to the Division of Motor Vehicles.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Cats
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 05:43 AM

I will never miss voting, even if I decide to deliberatley spoil my paper or vote tactically. In the Uk any voter can register to vote by post if they think getting to the polling station may be a problem. I have a very good reason for making sure I vote ~ my Grandmother was a suffragette and was sent to prison, going on hunger strike and being force fed, so that women and, many people forget this, working men had the right to vote. If I didn't vote she would be turning in her grave and probably come back to berate me! If you do not vote, I believe, you have no right to criticise the government, be it local or national. So, think about those women who gave everything, some even their lives, so that we can put a cross on a piece of paper and hold our heads high while we do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:44 AM

Postal voting should be limited to those who are either out of the country, or honestly unable to make it to the polling station, and they should be issued election by election, unless you can demonstarate a permenant reason why you need one. The housebound pensioner would keep her postal vote, the Asian housewife would not be allowed to vote from home, or pass it on to her husband because 'he deals with everything like that'

The active promotion of postal voting in the UK in recent years has seen a huge increase in electoral fraud, mainly amongst ethnic minorities. Whole families have their votes made for them by community leaders, and houses turn out to have 19peoples postal votes registered to them, most of whom never lived there.

The net effect of action aginst this is, in the short term, partisan, and with a heavy racial bias, but that is where the problem is. Elections we can trust are vital, and the best time to stop the rot is before it spreads.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: number 6
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:45 AM

Great post Cats.

Let's think not only about women who struggled for the right to vote, but for everyone in the past who fought for democracy and their right to vote.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 10:30 AM

I believe that every person who is legally entitled to vote should vote. It is not hard to stay informed--altho' that isn't a requirement--and it isn't hard to do it (vote, that is). As a traveling man, I vote by mail ballot. I never, never watch the commercials from either side, and all mailers and flyers become unread kindling. In my next life I want to make and sell those ads...way too big bucks there! I try to listen to what candidates say and compare that to how they act, rather than what the opponant has to say about hmr. [hmr=him or her]

I missed the 1960 election by being 3 days too young, but I have never missed an election since, save one primary; I've even voted for winning candididates or issues a time or two.

A 'Guest' above opined as to how right-wing talk show hosts are trying to suppress voting turn-out. On what planet is this happening? I listen to a lot of talk radio, local, national, some left, most right. I have heard no host try to get people not to vote; contrariwise, they pooh-pooh those few on the right who do want to boycott elections or cast protest votes. Some of those hosts are actively promoting various candidacies and exhorting Republican voting.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:28 PM

"I've even voted for winning candididates or issues a time or two."

In the same election, huh?! Good on ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Cats
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 03:58 PM

You are right number 6! I shall never forget the footage of the people queueing in Africa to vote for the first time and the woman who, when told she would have to wait another three or four hours, said that it didn't matter as she had waited all her life to vote and a few hours more made no difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,Grandpa Nate
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:24 AM

Vote Against The Incumbents.
Vati, Vati.

That's V-A-T-I, with a long 'A' and a long 'I'.

The present state of America makes me sick. It actually makes me nauseous to ponder how far this once magnificent country has slipped into mediocrity. When I was a young man, fifty years ago, you could mention just about anything: And America was best at that.

Back then, America enjoyed the best health care, the best schools, and the best working conditions on Earth, while we worked less hours, made more money, and enjoyed a life style never before seen upon this planet.

Our coal mines were producing more coal, our steel-mills smelting more iron, and our assembly-lines led the World in the manufacture of beautiful automobiles, refrigerators, wash-machines, dryers, and the hoard of smaller appliances and gadgets (which eliminated most of the drudgery of our daily chores) and introduced mankind to the life-of-ease, we all now enjoy.

Now, American High School Graduates rank only average (whether tested in Mathematics, World History, Language, Science or any other critical field of expertise) and compared with the test scores of students from the other industrialized nations.

Our so-called health care system stinks, it is without question, the most dysfunctional conglomeration of nonsensical laws bureaucrats have ever assembled. It assures illegal aliens and greedy politicians unlimited free health care, while it renders millions of hard working, honest citizens, incapable of obtaining any kind of health insurance.

The new Social Security Drug Plan deducts a premium for drug insurance, which you can bet will double every year (for at least the next two years) from the social security checks, of subscribers. A great many drugs are not covered by this new plan, and it only pays a maximum of about 70% on any drugs, a lot less on most. When the total drug bill (what the retiree and the government pays) reaches $2250.00, Grandma gets cut off, has to pay it all herself, until her total drug bill reaches $3500.00. Obviously if Grandma can not afford her drugs, her bill will never get to $3500.00, so she will go without her drugs for the rest of the year. Of course the monthly premium will still be deducted from her Social Security Check. The drug companies formulated this drug bill, got it enacted, and only the drug companies are going to benefit from it. (Our government gives them the premiums.) In short, this Shaft Our Grandparents Bill is nothing but a multi-million dollar windfall for the drug companies.

The above bill is sure not the worst medical bill our elected officials have ever enacted. It just happens to be the last that made me angry. Hundreds of anti consumer bills and amendments are on the books, which benefit only the medical and or the drug industries. Foreign competition to American Drug Companies is nonexistent. If it was legitimized, we could import drugs from reputable foreign drug facilities, for as little as 10% of the extortion we are now forced to pay our American Drug Companies.

Sad to say, but the Medical Cartels and Drug Companies, with their unchallenged power, are not the worst villains when it comes to manipulating our US Government into giving them a license to gouge us. The international oil and gas conglomerates, the interstate utility companies, railroad cartels, automobile and airplane manufacturing companies, the cable companies, international shipping cartels and a score of other business concerns all wield as much or more power over our Congress, Senate and President, than the drug companies do. Big business is our real enemy. Big business controls both our national and state governments, and big business is the real reason America is losing ground on all fronts, the reason America is slowly but steadily sliding into mediocrity.

The companies mentioned above, along with a score of Internationally
Recognized Countries and a hoard of other mighty forces, funnel billions of dollars annually into Washington, to influence the Republican and Democratic Party Leaders to legislate on their behave.   

The leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties, in the Congress and senate, now have more control over their subservient Congressman and Senators, than any Marine General has over his troops. The political parties control the pac-money. And the pac-money is what decides who will get elected, or heaven forbid, smeared. The political bosses can't just walk down on the floor and tell a congressman or senator that they are fired. But they can have anyone that fails to kowtow to the powers that be, ostracized, rendered powerless, and kept busy answering complaints. And they can definitely keep anyone from being re-elected. I believe it is very important that we all know the political parties have strict control over our congressmen and senators. If we are going to declare war, prudence behooves us to learn all we can about our enemy.

Now, I just pulled what I have written here off the top of my head. So if you find a mistake, don't get excited, it is not that important, the overall theme of this opinion is correct. And furthermore it is also correct that with a minimum of research, anyone can ascertain for themselves that this greatest of all nations, is rapidly slipping into mediocrity.

And even the United States of America, the greatest nation that ever existed, can fall from within, if we continue to allow misguided politicians, to give up piece after piece of good government, to anyone who is able and willing to pay for preferential treatment.

I have been telling people for years; when in doubt always vati. But only in this last year has the urge to really push this concept become obligatory. Actually, voting against the incumbents is a very viable method of straightening out what is wrong with America. Many congressmen and senators win their sets by very small margins, less than 5%. So if just 5% of the voters would vati, we would probably get near 25% of the senators and congressmen. And you can bet we would get their attention. If as many voters vati-ed, as voted for Ross Perot in 1992 (He drew 18.9% of the popular vote.) we would probably unseat about 75% of both houses. Very few politicians win their seats by 19% of the vote. Folks this plan definitely has possibilities.

Politician's egos are all wrapped up in their positions. Actually the only thing in the World, politicians love more than pac-money, is their influential positions, their jobs. And on the very day our legislators learn that their electorate is actually threatening to vote them out of office, they are going to be magically stricken with a burning desire to legislate on behave of their constituency.

The only question left is, where are you going to place your loyalty, to the political party that you have been blindly supporting, or to America? You can't serve two masters, and be loyal to both. We have to take the power away from the political bosses, to the extent that it allows our elected representatives to vote the way we tell them to vote. Or in thirty years you are not going to be able to tell the difference between Washington and the corrupt Government of Mexico, or for that matter, tell the difference between America and Mexico.

I wrote this poem more than twenty years ago, and it
reverberates my sentiment now as vibrantly, as then.

VATI, VATI.

AS MIGHTY ROME FELL, AMERICA COULD DIE.
WHETHER IT FAILS OR NOT, IS UP TO YOU AND I.

I worried and stewed, but by-and-by,
came up with a plan, where you and I,
can put America the a road, to a brand-new high.
Just blame the politicians, get blood in your eye,
and Vote Against The Incumbents. Vati, vati.

Now just voting won't do it, we've got to vati.
That's v, a, t, i, with a long A, and long I.
Vote against the incumbents, and you vati.
Things will never get better, until we vati.
Vote against the incumbents, Vati, vati.

This is no time, to just set and sigh.
America will fail, without you and I.
The time has come, we must do or die.
We must all vote, and we must vati.
Vote against the incumbents, Vati, vati.

Things won't just get better, by-and-by.
Unless the apathetic voters, you and I,
hit those poles with blood in our eye.
And not only vote, but wisely vati,
Vote against the incumbent. Vati, vati.

We dare not buy, some political lie,
the America we love, is about to die.
Politicians no longer, serve you and I,
but all acquiesce to the powers that buy.
Vote against the incumbents. Vati, vati.

The newly elected may want to serve you and I,
until that powerful pac-money catches their eye.
Then party loyalty becomes, their big lie.
As they vote with the pac, for their piece of the pie.
Vote against the incumbents, Vati, vati.

Congressmen and Senators are nigh as apt to die,
as meet defeat at the poles, by you and I.
They know we'll vote for'em, they don't have to try.
America is declining, as democracy goes awry.
Vote against the incumbent. Vati, vati.

Waxing fat on the apathy, shown by you and I,
Politicians became hogs, and Washington's a sty.
But we can change all that, in the blink of an eye,
if we just get off our apathy, and dutifully vati.
Vote against the incumbents. Vati, vati.

If just one out of twenty, of us would vati,
We'd get nigh a forth of that Washington sty.
Now that might be to few, to help you and I,
But we'd darn sure make the rest of them shy.
Vote against the incumbents. Vati, vati.

And when; "Foul, foul," the politicians cry.
And charge that; "Great careers will sadly die."
Stand up and look them, straight in the eye,
And vow; "Losing only makes the truly-great try."
Vote against the incumbents. Vati, vati.

From the County Coroner, to that Washington sty,
if you don't love the incumbent, always vati.
Help turn America toward, a brand—new high.
Teach your kids and your friends, they must vati.
Vote against the incumbents. Vati, vati.

If the state of America, makes you want to cry,
then help start a revolution, no one has to die.
Our party loyalty sent elections go so far awry.
And we can fix that error, just revolt and vati.
Vote against the incumbents. Vati, vati.

Part your 2nd and 3rd fingers; that "V" means vati.
Send this to a friend, who you think will comply.
Let's all band together, and give'em a black eye.
Vati, vati, and hearty bye-bye.

If you like this, copy it, and send it on.

Grandpa Nate @ Rawlins, Wyoming.
Http//grandpanate.com

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: DougR
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 07:25 PM

No. Only American citizens who register to vote should vote.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:04 AM

Where is the outrage?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 05:28 PM

Here's an interesting 'thought experiment' - what would happen to a democratic society if everyone in it decided not to vote?

Here are some possibilities:

- All the politicians realise the error of their ways, apologise, and start being nice to the electorate.

- The society's political system is thoroughly reformed and everyone lives happily everafter.

- Some power crazed general fills the power vacuum and the society languishs under a brutal dictatorship for several generations.

I know which one I think is most likely.

F--CKING WELL VOTE !! - it's better than the alternative. And if you don't like the system get off your fat butt and change it!

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: autolycus
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 06:26 PM

(Having read hardly any posts[want my bed,okaaaaaaaaaaaaay?])

People should only be allowed to vote when they reached a satisfactory level of being informed.
That's why Schiller wrote early in the 19th c."Votes should be weighed, not counted."




    Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 07:34 PM

Our early voting opened, today, so I am done...went in, asked if the machines were by Diebold (they didn't know and I couldn't find any maker's labels), had more questions they couldn't ask, they assured me all machines are locked etc. and *safe*, and I cast my votes, fwiw. AND< they didn't make me move my van which was parked right in front with bumper stickers which included "Defend America - Fire the Republicans."

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 01:03 AM

Outrage about what, Kendall?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 01:08 AM

"Democrats need 15 new seats in the House and six in the Senate to claim a majority. Non-partisan analysts Stuart Rothenberg and Charles Cook estimate Democrats will gain at least 18 to 20 House seats and possibly more.

Taking over the Senate is a tougher proposition. Democrats are favored to pick up four Senate seats held by Republicans and are competitive in three more in border states: Virginia, Tennessee and Missouri.

Democrats are keeping an eye on a potential pickup in Arizona, Republicans on possibilities in New Jersey or Michigan."

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: kendall
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:27 AM

Doug, surely you jest. Even the most devoted party loyalist can see that we have spent billions of dollars and half a million lives on a lost cause as a result of a lie!

If I were a republican, I would hang my head in shame to see what the neo cons have done to my country. Invaded a soveriegn country for revenge against its leader. Run up the national debt to 8 TRILLION dollars! What the hell are we going to do do if China calls in our debt? What is it that these "conservatives" are conserving? You people are unable to separate George Bush from the republican party. They are NOT one and the same!

I switched parties when the "Actor" was nominated by the republicans back in 1980. Conservative my ass, he spent more money than all previous presidents combined, never balanced the budget as he promised to do, then there were the lies about Iran-Contra and Arms for hostages.

Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln must be turning over in their graves.
How can anyone with more than a teaspoon full of brains say that Iraq is better off now than when we invaded?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote? Yes
From: GUEST,GrandpaNate
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 11:26 AM

Why we must Vati?
Vati = Vote Against The Incumbents
I believe, most people in America, old enough to vote, know that corruption is flourishing in our Nation's Capital. Yet incredibly, this knowledge seems to generate very little real concern. It definitely should: Because corrupt politicians can even bring America, the richest, most powerful country that ever existed, to her knees.

Every day the Republican and Democratic Party Lords work at enacting bills, which cedes one international conglomerate after another some financial quid pro quo, for pac-money received. And nearly all concessions to Big Business prove to be detrimental to America's working people. Under the present system America will eventually have hungry masses without health care, millionaires, and no middle class. America, as we know her, is at this moment rapidly degenerating.

Our National debt has now exceeded $8,548,384,110,614 as of the first of October 2006. To put that number in perspective, we just passed 300,000,000 citizens, so for every legal man, woman and child in America, we now owe $28,494.61. Talk about selling children into slavery, America has to be, the all time number one, on this list. Just the interest on our debt is costing us 427 billion, 419 million, 205 thousand, 5 hundred, and 30 dollars a year, at 5 percent. Actually we don't borrow our money that cheaply. That is 1 billion, 171 million, 11 thousand, 5 hundred, 22 dollars each and every day, which our legislators are throwing away, because they failed to balance our budget. And every day, they are in session, our misguided politicians continue to give away, more and more money to Big Business. Their insatiable greed is like a growing cancer, sucking the life-blood out of America. Even if we could elect legislators, which prudently budgeted America's great wealth: It would take our children, at least, thirty years to pay off these incredible debts, we have recklessly accumulated.

Still not concerned? Well let me relate one more fact: If America's lenders get nervous, and cut off our credit, our government will collapse, beyond resurrection, in less than 120 days.

Obviously, the Senators and Congressmen ruling the House and Senate are never going to voluntarily give up their seats, or the source of their power, their pac-money. And stated short and quick: The only way, we are ever going to oust enough corrupt officials to demand drastic political reform, is to vati. Washington is in sad shape, and if we love this country we had best wake up, and do something to correct this untenable situation. If you have a better idea, I'll listen to you, if not, let's vati.
GrandpaNate @ Rawlins, Wyoming. http://grandpanate.com

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:34 PM

"Hell yes" if you are a Dem
"Hell no" if you are a Rep

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,John Gray in Oz
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 05:16 PM

In Oz it is compulsory to attend a polling station on election and have your named crossed off, otherwise a fine is incurred. Once inside the booth you can write what you like on the ballot cards.
But its important to vote if you wish to maintain a democratic system.
Back in the 50's here the leadership of our waterside workers ( longshoremen ? )became dominated by communist officials. This was because rank & file members would rather go to the pub after hours instead of going to Union meetings and voting for moderate delegates.
So strikes became neverending and international freighting was effected. Remember this was during the Cold War. The Union black banned the loading of merchant ships taking supplies to our troops in VietNam. Our gov't had to purchase merchant ships, commission them into the Royal Australian Navy, crew them with regular sailors and load them in navy dockyards using sailors and soldiers as the labour force.
It took over 20 years to rectify the situation on our waterfront.
If you vote-you can change things. If you don't vote-you can change bugger-all.
And voting gives you one important right - the right to criticise.
If you don't participate in the process then you cannot bitch about it.

JG / FME

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Rowan
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 10:02 PM

The first three sentences and the last four sentences in GUEST,John Gray in Oz' posting are factual while the rest are partisan and only arguable. However...

I happened to be in SC during the summer and autumn leading to the election of Bill Clinton and found it interesting to compare the two systems. I found many who rather agreed with the aphorism, common in Australia, "It doesn't matter who you vote for, it's always a politician that gets in." When they found we had compulsory voting, and that you were fined if there was no record of you voting or having a valid excuse, most I talked with thought it would be wonderful to have the same system in America. I then confused them a little by telling them that many Australians used all the arguments presented above in the thread to justify a preference for noncompulsory voting.

My own preference is for compulsory voting, as it forces everyone to take some level of responsibility for the consequences. I realise that many duck any notion of responsibility in this matter and can even express it on the ballot papers. Because we use a 'preferential voting' system (I can bore you with the details another time) you must put a number in each candidate's box on the paper; that's the simplest version but it can get a bit more complex. If you just number them in consecutive order down the list, it's counted as valid but is called a "donkey vote"; their proportion of the total is mulled over by psephologists. If you mark any part of the ballot paper outside the boxes (by writing derisive insults, for example) or use comments in the boxes, the ballot paper is classified "Invalid" and not counted to any candidate; the proportion of these in the total is described as "the protest vote" and is also mulled over by psephologists.

Many of my American friends who thought compulsory voting was a generally good idea were not so sure when I told them that this meant that Australians were required to inform the Australian Electoral Commission (an arm of the Commonwealth Govt also used by State and Municipal Govts) of any change of address. The independence of the AEC ensured no nonsenses of the types we heard about a couple of years ago but they had to have a record (in the public domain) of where to mail the notification you were to be fined.

I'm not sure compulsory voting, compared with noncompulsory votin, would have a great difference in the results but I think it would certainly change the tactics used by both politicians and voters. I regard myself as unwilling to allow any arm of govt to arrogate to itself any responsibility I think I should exercise. I want to vote and I construct my tactics accordingly and then go and vote, even when I have to list 163 candidates in descending order of preference on a ballot paper the size of a decent tablecloth.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Slag
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 11:41 PM

In elections in the US of A? Only Citizens who are legally registered to vote should vote one ballot only. That's the technical part. Only the educated and informed should vote. Only those with an IQ of 135 or higher should vote. Only Men should vote. Only men who are of the royal blood line should vote! Only the Aristocracy should vote. Only rich white freemen should vote! Oh, wait! that's already been done!

If you are a concerned citizen YOU should vote your conscience! If you don't you can't complain because your opinion doesn't matter. I hope you all go cast your votes this Tuesday. Let our public servants reflect the hearts and minds of the majority for such is democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,GrandpaNate
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:34 PM

I not only voted.
I vatied.
And I feel great.
Gramps

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,GramdpaNate
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:27 PM

Vati Party

VATI is the first letter in "Vote Against The Incumbents," and that is what it means. Vati means you always vote against the person holding the office, the incumbent, regardless of political affiliation.

The majority of our Congressmen and Senators have absolutely no fear of losing their offices. They know that party loyalty [be it Republican or Democrat] of their constituency will assure their perpetual reelecting. In the whole Senate you are likely to have only five or six seats [in the Congress less than 30 seats] that are not securely locked-up by one, or the other, political parties.

And actually, nothing is gained when we do manage to send an occasional new representative to Washington. In short: They are simply gobbled up by the system. They are introduced to pac-money, and the powerful party leaders [Party Lords] and end up cuddling up to Big Business, and voting the party line, for legislation that enhances the Conglomerate's bottom line, to the determent of their constituency, to the determent of America.

Now, a large percentage of Congressmen and Senators win their seats by very small margins, less than 5%, so if just 10% of the voters Vati, we would likely unseat nearly 20% of our Representatives. If we could generate as much support as Ross Perot did, [according to the last election] we would kick out close to 90% of the House and Senate.

But more important than just getting rid of some self-serving politicians, unseating just 10% of the House and Senate would definitely get their attention. And then we could demand drastic change. We could demand a clean break between our Legislators and Big Business. We could outlaw all soft-money, and make any contact between our Legislators and Big Business [except publicized discussion in an open forum] illegal.
We can demand term limits. I am for an eight-year term limit, for all Government Offices. Let Senators serve one six year term or change the length their terms to four years. We can demand secure borders, and that everything entering our ports be inspected. We could demand a rigidly enforced alien worker program, which caters to America's needs. And demand a viable plan which honorably ends the war in Iraq.

We can let Washington know, anyone who votes against anything the majority of America clearly wants, had better start looking for a new job.

Vatiing is a very viable method of voting to save America, to cure what is wrong with America, a viable way of stopping America's rapid descent into mediocrity.

The interest in "vote against the incumbents" is growing exponentially. Now we need to get organized, form a political party. Much like any other political party, except we won't run candidates for office. Our challenge will be to make the other Parties Candidates legislate for American, and America's People.

If you have any ideas, comments, want to help get organized, or whatever, please leave a message at: http://voteagainsttheincumbents.blogspot.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:30 PM

1. Everyone should vote.
2. Only those who are prepared to cast a reasonable vote should vote.
3. See #1.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,The Barden of England sans cookie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:27 PM

It's Democracy people!!! Wake up!!!
Sorry Amos but : Only those who are prepared to cast a reasonable vote should vote. is not democracy. One person, one vote. And far too many people have died for that ideal for the rest of us to forget it. Just VOTE!
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:11 PM

The right to vote is possibly the most important right anyone can have, in the context of being able to register an opinion of the performance of his representatives.

Everyone having that right should exercise it, or accept the fact that he has no right to complain about the government he gets.

Simple
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:22 PM

Yep! Everyone should vote - there is no alternative!

And (as I think is being suggested somewhere above) we should vote against the incumbent at least until the incumbent stops working for Big Business and starts working for us, the voters and taxpayers.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:27 PM

VATI? Why not just institute one-term limits? Then you could vote FOR someone and not just knee jerk against.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:47 PM

The logical flaw in this" term limit business" is that it supposes that someone who has never held an office is somehow more qualified for it than someone who has held the office.

Another flaw is that, when you get a politician's attention by throwing him out of office, you have got the attention of an unemployed private citizen--not the attention of the person who replaced him, who is likely to be drunk with newly acquirred power--

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,Neil
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 10:00 AM

Voting against the incumbent? Always? What if the incumbent is doing a good job? Or even a halfway decent job? What if the new guy is a moron? What if the incumbent has been in office long enough to sit on or chair committees that can do real good for your community?
   Term limits? Same argument.
   Some have suggested I.Q. tests in order to be allowed to vote. Lets not forget that I.Q. tests were a standard practice under Jim Crow. Besides, for the most part, it's the people with lower intelligence who choose not to vote anyways.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:55 AM

"The general concept of this thread sounds Republican..."

            I'm not sure that's true. In the last two elections we saw people who'd been totally brainwashed by the Relgious Right vote in a manner that would otherwise have been totally against their own interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:47 AM

I once had a T-shirt that said: If God wanted us to vote, He would have given us some candidates

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: pattyClink
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:21 PM

Everyone is so righteous about 'everybody deserves to vote!'. Well, duh. The original question on the floor is, should we stop coaxing the uninformed and apathetic to get out and vote as their patriotic duty.   I think we should. There are some intensely stupid and uninformed folks out there, and while they have every right to vote, maybe they should skip it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:26 PM

"intensely stupid and uninformed folks "

"Only those who are prepared to cast a reasonable vote should vote."



WHO gets to decide who is "reasonable" and who is "stupid and uninformed"?


Like freedom of speech, freedom to vote is only meaningful if you give it to those whose opinions you dislike.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: pattyClink
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:35 PM

You're not listening. Nobody wants to keep anyone from voting. Anybody can vote!

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:00 PM

"RE: BS: Should everyone vote?"

Does a chicken have lips?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:15 PM

In case anyones forgotten here's my original post. I'm AOK with any thread drift but I wanted to make sure that folks knew what the original point was.

October 19th of 2006

"In the past I'd always thought that the more people who voted – the better. That the more people who voted – the better the cross-section of people's opinions that would decide who was elected, what bond bills were passed,ect. Now I'm beginning to think that is a little naive. Recently our local paper showed that Texas has a terrible record on the number of women who vote. Basically – very few do. And very few of them even knew that an election was being held according to polls held on election days. And I started thinking – "Why should I care" ?

It's not that I don't want women to vote. It's not a gender thing. The question is – do we want folks voting – male or female – that can't be bothered to even know that there is an election being held that day? Let alone having enough interest to find out about the candidates and the issues. If they can't be bothered – why should we care? Idealistically if everyone got involved and got informed the electorate really would be the voice of the people. But that isn't going to happen. And I'm beginning to think that's a good thing."

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:13 PM

OK. Here's a serious answer.

Probably not. Some people are too stupid to breathe let alone select folks to represent all of us. That said, I have to ask how one would go about ensuring a fair process whereby some voters are not allowed to or a fair method of prorating votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:31 PM

There is no way and there should not be one either. Everyone is legally allowed to vote. My question was if we should try very hard to get noninterested voters to show up on election day. In my mind if someone is too stupid or uninformed to know that there is an election going on today then I'm not going to be upset that their voice wasn't counted.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:33 PM

There are some of those people who DO go to the polls. They also on occasion decide the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:59 PM

Okay, maybe everyone should be able to vote just' that some shouldn't have their votes actually counted...

Let me explain:

Okay, you step into the ballot box and there are three multiple choice questions:

1. Which of the following is not one of the three branches of government:
    A. The Legislative Branch
    B. The Executive Branch
    C. The NASCAR Branch
    D. The Judical Branch

2. Who is the current president of the United States?
    A. Jeff Burton
    B. Clint Black
    C. Rush Limbaugh
    D. George Bush

3. If you have lost the owners manual to your chainsaw and forgot that you were "cautioned" not to eat it or drink the gasoline you should:
    A. Eat the sumabich anyway but not drink the gasoline.
    B. Just drink the gasoline but not eat the chainsaw.
    C. Eat the chainsaw then wash it down with gasoline.
    D. None of the above

Now, here's where my brillence shines... I think that anyone who can't get 2 outta 3 above questions correct should have their voted accepted, of course, but not counted...

Now, of course the Repubs would try to block this brillent move toward levelin' the playing field but, hey???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:06 PM

Bobert - Do we get to "phone-a-friend" when we take your test?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:07 PM

Well, there'd be no point asking the audience . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 06:11 PM

No, Wes... No help... And it ain't open book either... Yup, this will certainly weed out a few of the morons...

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: annamill
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 07:37 PM

Should everyone vote?

Hmm...NO, only those who vote the same way I do!!

;-)

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 02:22 PM

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 02:24 PM

Bobert,

"Yup, this will certainly weed out a few of the morons... "


Yes, but will it weed out the RIGHT morons? What happens when all those inner city wards end up with no votes, and states like Maryland end up Republican?

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,Justin Urquart
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 01:56 PM

I ask everyone to come out and vote for a man who loves America and has God on his side.

God Bless America

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:05 PM

I have done as you asked, Justin, and cast my vote for Mr. Obama, the senator from Illinois.

I am sure you will be delighted to hear this.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Rasener
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:34 PM

No good moaning if you don't vote

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:52 PM

god takes sides? Hmmmm...cast my vote weeks ago and yes, it was for Obama!

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:24 PM

I understand that Gov. Pailin was presented with Bobert's quiz. She said she'd have to get back to the pollster with the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,Justin Urquart
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:25 PM

It may well end in tears for you, I imagine it will !

Blessings

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:31 PM

From: Rapaire
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:31 PM

When someone enters a voting both, make 'em solve a quadratic equation or answer some other question that shows they know one end of a pencil from another. If they can't do it, zip! down the ol' oubliette. If they succeed, they get to vote.


   The problem with that is such. In a political system in which certain groups are denied a proper education, requiring an intelligence test to vote just continues the cycle of disenfranchisement. Witness the "literacy tests" which along with poll taxes were hallmarks of the Jim Crow south. Besides, who gets to make up the question, equation etc. Some might want to require a nuclear physics problem and then where would us dreamy-eyed poets be.

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:53 PM

Justin:

Your notion of an infinite SOurce beyond human ken, capable of building all the universes in their glory, which would simultaneously have an abiding interest in the fate of an election on a third-rate planet on the edge of a second rate galaxy in a remote cluster far from the center of this particular Cosmos is laughable. HEre's a clue: God could not care less how you vote,, and he has no opinions about the candidates, their marital statuses, or the elections they are involved in.

IF he did, he would be backing Obama as the Ne4w Testament candidate all the way. I refer you, for example, to Corinthians 13.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should everyone vote?
From: GUEST,Justin Urquart
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 05:04 PM

His granny took a nose dive tonight.