The United States government is broken thanks to ignorant voters and an unnecessarily skewed melting pot of issues.
I was discussing politics with a group of people the other day when a middle-aged woman told the group, “All of this talk about the war is meaningless. The tax talk doesn’t matter. If our country does not have a strong moral base, God will not have us under his protective covering. If we spit in God’s face with the removal of prayer from schools, the legalization of abortion, and destroying the sanctity of marriage, why would God favor our nation? If we do not have God’s favor, we are nothing as a nation. I’ll never vote for a man that isn’t disgusted that thousands of babies are being killed in this country every month.”…
Article comments
26 - Benjamin
Pablo,
You think the voting boxes are fixed?
Or are you just against the electoral college?
(I understand the difference between a democracy and a republic)
I'm okay with voting be a privilege as long as everyone has the right to the test. There was obviously a big problem with how the testing was set up earlier in our history.
I understand how it could be a touchy subject, racially speaking because of the Jim Crowe law. That's why I mentioned the NAACP at the end of the article. But I'm not suggesting the test because I'm a racist. I think the ignorance is spread equally along racial lines. There would be a lot more white voters left out of the process than people of color if a test was inacted.
27 - moon
The PS to that, Benjamin, is that YOUR rights and MY rights are not--nor should they be--more important than anyone else's.
And that folks should vote from prison--especially since imprisonment is largely based on being poor and dark.
28 - Cindy D
"All education is, after all, POLITICAL (somebody decides what YOU should learn)."
And that's the truth!
29 - Cindy D
"YOUR rights and MY rights are not--nor should they be--more important than anyone else's."
And that is the truth too!
Benjamin,
You didn't respond when I took away your rights in my comment #14. I wasn't only being a smart alec, I was making a point.
30 - Doug Hunter
Another disconnected issue... but very telling. The basic fact is that ignorant morons vote for the person most likely to give them a handout because they find it hard to succeed on their own. They vote for the democrat left, therefore leftist democrats are all for extending the vote.
Conversely, those on the right are usually for limiting votes. If the demographics are reversed you'll see a different story (eg. absentee military ballots being challenged by dems)
31 - Benjamin
Cindy,
You are correct that I probably should have picked better a better term than "social". Obviously welfare is a social issue, but I wouldn't want welfare to be a part of the social branch. I would have picked "moral", but I don't know that I consider gun control to be a moral issue and that I know for a fact is a leading vote changer for a lot of people in the south. The main thing is that I want to seperate the emotional moral issues that put blinders on people from every other issue that exists.
Sure, abortion is an important issue, but it's not something that is as relevant as a ton of other issues that are at our nation's forefront at the moment. The whole purpose of splitting up the social and fiscal (for lack of better terms) is to give those with the moral obsession (who seem mostly Republican to me) an avenue to voice that without affecting every other issue by accident.
This is a 1,300 word article. Obviously I'm not going to be able to trouble shoot most of the issues with my proposal of government. Obviously there are going to be problems with my idea. Still, I think it would have promise at bringing forth the best elements of society.
Benjamin
32 - Cindy D
The basic fact is that ignorant morons vote for the person most likely to give them a handout because they find it hard to succeed on their own.
Doug,
Don't be so hard on yourself. You seem to have done okay. I mean, judging by the fact that you at least have a computer and internet connection. That's a sort of successfulness.
33 - moon
Benjamin,
1. It's time for you to go back to the drawing board.
2. Are you old enough to vote? (This is not a snide comment, but a legitimate question.)
Doug,
Nonsense. Folks on the right are into handouts just as much as those on the left. Not all rightwing losers have their handouts gracias a their Dad, but many do. And they are into the BIG handouts--like contracts to provide mercenaries in Iraq....
34 - Cindy D
Benjamin,
Okay, you are looking at the social issues though. I'm looking for a single "fiscal" issue that has no social implications.
35 - Benjamin
Cindy,
I probably would have caught that you were making a point had you not suggested sterilizing me shortly thereafter. I just figured you were being an asshole. My bad, I guess?
The difference is that in my scenario people would have prior access to concrete information constructed by a mixture of both parties about each candidate's stance before being denied a vote if they decided against caring. You made an abstract conclusion based on your own opinion and then enforced it on a message board.
I guess you're right. No difference.
36 - moon
Benjamin,
Just
let
this
go.
It
is
going
nowhere.
37 - Benjamin
Moon,
Where did you think I was under the impression it was going? Straight to congress to be ratified?
Benjamin
38 - pablo
Benjamin,
Did I say anything about the Electoral College? Methinks not.
Yes the voting machines are rigged to steal elections, thats exactly what I said. Google Stephen Spoonamore.
39 - Cindy D
My point was this:
You are making a decision about what right a person can have to vote based on your own subjective measurement of what they should know.
I took away your right to vote based on my own subjective measurement of what you should know.
Next, I carried this one step further, to illustrate the danger in taking people's rights away based on whether they fit our subjective measurements.
You think the issue of voting is important enough to warrant removal of a right from someone you are judging as unsuitable.
I used a different issue of unsuitability. It resulted in a more sever deprivation of your rights.
40 - pablo
This is very basic shit Benjamin, you really should know better imho.
41 - Cindy D
I do agree with you Benjamin that voters are uninformed.
42 - Doug Hunter
"Nonsense. Folks on the right are into handouts just as much as those on the left."
True, it's just a different demographic. From my anecdotal experience almost everyone that lives off of government entitlement programs, scams a government program to eek out a living, or activily disrupts society with criminal activity speak and most likely vote in favor of democrats. These people are not good at things like showing up on time at a specific location or remembering what day the election is, they just know democrats are "for the poor people" and will make their quest at surviving without contributing that much easier.
That's not a particularly large segment of the population it's just the target of the original article. Democrats should look towards something like compulsory voting after this election when they have sole control of the government. If they could squeeze that in or some watered down version that strongly encourages the act it would solidify the fundamental shift leftward the country has experienced.
43 - Dr Dreadful
Pablo @ #6 and 7:
I was out, hence unable to respond as soon as I would have liked.
I'm actually in agreement with you here. You hit the nail on the head with your citation from Robertson v. DPW, in which the right to travel is placed, correctly, under the umbrella of the general right to life, liberty and the pursuit of all that good stuff. It is not in itself, however, a fundamental right - any more than golf, shopping and whatever else it was I gave as an example are. Fundamentally speaking, there are other ways to travel besides driving.
Voting, however, is reasonably considered to be a fundamental right. You're either free to vote or you aren't. You either have free access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or you don't. There is not and should not be a test on these core rights.
And as for Amendment 9, no doubt you're correct that this was intended to encompass such things as the right to drive. The Founders knew full well that if they didn't put that one in, certain bloody-minded individuals would fight tooth and nail to deny rights left, right and center on the grounds that because a given right wasn't specifically enumerated, it wasn't a right at all.
That said, a right that wasn't considered basic and obvious enough to be enumerated in the original Bill of Rights is not, by definition, fundamental.
Driving a car without proper training can turn the vehicle into a lethal weapon, thereby potentially endangering others. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to make the right to drive contingent on passing a test and holding a license. The Right to Life trumps the Right to Drive here.
The act of voting, however, endangers no-one else's rights, and so should NOT be subject to a qualifying test.
(As an aside, if anyone wants to know why I don't think the right enumerated in the Second Amendment qualifies as a fundamental right, let me know and I'll explain my reasoning.)
44 - Cindy D
Benjamin,
I probably would have caught that you were making a point had you not suggested sterilizing me shortly thereafter. I just figured you were being an asshole. My bad, I guess?
Okay, I was being sort of an asshole. I mean you weren't being rude. I just read that interpretation of women's/black's suffrage and it very much got to me. I urge you to please do some further reading on the subject. Read some female authors and black authors.
I hope you will accept my apology for being an asshole.
45 - pablo
Too bad Nalle can never admit what you have the humility to do Cindy, this site would be a whole lot better if he did. I thank you for that.
46 - Arch Conservative
"The basic fact is that ignorant morons vote for the person most likely to give them a handout because they find it hard to succeed on their own. They vote for the democrat left, therefore leftist democrats are all for extending the vote."
There's nothing like a heaping dose of truth on a Sunday morning. Thanks Doug
This guy right here, even though he's voting for McCain, has restored my faith in the possibility that not every last American out there is a braindead moron incapable of thinking for themself...
47 - Condor
Anyone ever take the citizenship test? I looked one over once. It was pretty comprehensive.
Testing should be basic Constitution and civics related, not in depth as to individual candidates, or parties. There are some websites out there right now which give basic tests in the Constitution. Why not. We have to be licensed to drive, why not licensed to vote. We have to register to vote. Prove citizenship etc... While the roadways may be part of our rights. We still have to have the necessary paperwork in order to travel on it, and have to abide by safety rules and regulations. So, where's the liberty in that? There is the perception of liberty, but you have to pay for the access, in taxes, fees, tests, fines, etc....
One thing I would like to point out Benjamin, is that if people are not voting due to social issues, or 2nd amendment issues, that usually is at the party level, regardless of who is on the ticket. I know people who vote straight republican and make no bones about why. I also know people who vote democrat and make known that their party supports their viewpoints also. Candidates be damned, it's party or nothing with those people.
I'd like to ask, how many go down the ballot and vote for this person/party, then skip over to this person/party, then skip over to....
I think I did once when I voted for Nader. But over the years I tend to vote where my interestests are. For instance if I was an auto-worker and union member, I would vote with that block.
Voting blocs have existed for years and will continue. Unions have blocs, organizations have blocs, races and churches have blocs, gender has blocs. Anti-abortion? Vote anti-abortion.
I also used to bemoan a candidate making it through the primary process based soley on their social stances. We (the american people) have left a lot of good, bright, articulate politicians in the dust because they attended church, or thought abortion was wrong, or weren't necessarily pro-gay. Even with law to the contrary these politicians were not given the chance... because social stances have become more important than the ability or the intelligence to govern correctly. So what do we end up with? Take a look around you, around the House and Senate, around the white house (over the years).... that's what we get. Less, not more.
48 - Benjamin
Cindy,
Oh god, does this mean that I'm going to have to apologize for all of the times I've been an asshole? I have too much to do today.
I shouldn't have said "only people to have a chance to have a good education." I should have said that, by and large, because of horrific oppression, those groups were robbed of having a chance at the kind of education necessary to make as informed vote as the white land owners. You'd still probably disagree, but oh well.
Benjamin
49 - Benjamin
Condor,
I'm having problems finding where our disagreement is.
Benjamin
50 - troll
imo elections should be by secret ballot ie no names should be on the ballot only signifiers a - b - c - etc
the voter then bases his decision on the energy emitted by the various letters
this would lead to better government you betcha
51 - moon
I would like to shovel some erath over this pitiful thread, as it is Day of the Dead here in Mexico and the rest of my folks are at the panteon.
Just a parting thought--or shot: All those rednecks at the bottom of the class barrel are voting for Obama?
Pull the other one.
52 - Dr Dreadful
Fucking hell, people. It doesn't matter a pair of dingoes' kidneys who cares about whatever idiot's views. If that's true why the hell do we have a comments box?
Personally, I don't sodding care whether Moon, Arch and Jet care about each other's views or not.
53 - Dan(Miller)
Doc,
Perhaps. But what would Douglas Adams say?
Dan(Miller)
54 - Lisa Solod Warren
Douglas Adams would say 42, of course.
55 - Dr Dreadful
Actually, Douglas Adams's characters did find the ruler of the entire universe, and discovered that he was absolutely suitable for the role.
He lived alone in a small shack on a remote planet, talked to his cat, and assumed everything was a figment of his own imagination until it could be proven otherwise.
56 - moon
Which is why he was the Ruler and everybody else was among the believing RULED who thought it actually was real and meant something.
57 - Cindy D
Dingoes kidneys, Dr.D? Are they good in a kidney pie?
I just LOVE a steak and kidney pie!
58 - Arch Conservative
"bizarrely inaccurate but nonetheless personal attack deleted"
?
C'mon you guys can't tease me like that.
There is no other word in the English language more apt to pique my interest than bizarre. Well maybe cunnilingus but bizarre is a very close second.
What did you say Jet? Don't let them stifle your creative insultery.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
59 - pablo
And here I thought Arch was a cunning linguist. I sure am. :)
60 - Baronius
Benjamin, it sounds like your plan was designed in order to produce the outcome you want. That's always dangerous. I think you've got to address Cindy's question. Which fiscal Congressional acts aren't social? Is war funding unrelated to morals? School vouchers? Faith-based initiatives? Medicare Part B?
The other problem I see, and this might be due to my ideology, is that many social decisions have fiscal consequences. You change the definition of family, it's going to affect preschool and after-school programs. You approve of gambling in your state, it's going to affect law enforcement. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
61 - Cindy D
B,
I agree about most social decisions affecting fiscal issues. With the fiscal issues I couldn't think of one. But, I was able to come up with one on the social side. Prayer in school. I couldn't think of a fiscal effect.
What do you think?
62 - Baronius
Cindy, I'm sure there are a few. I suspect that a return to scholastic discipline would yield a cascade of economic benefits and decrease the cost of education per child, but I don't see that happening through school prayer.
Imagine, though, if we could teach history as it occurred, with millions of people fighting over God and empire and money and freedom, all the things that drive human behaviour. If we taught children poems about love and death. If we showed science as a fight between great minds about the nature of the universe. If, in short, we showed kids what the world really is, instead of the sanitized version that gives no offense. Imagine if we confirmed what children intuitively know, that there are ideas worth fighting for.
63 - Cindy D
Baronius,
How eloquent! How very wonderfully and elegantly put!
Your second paragraph is a model of what the experience of education could be.
64 - Baronius
Thanks. Every four years I get emotional about our education policy. I find it inexplicable that it's never a prominent issue.
The Democrats never use it. Teachers, along with government workers, account for half of US union membership, and the Dems don't want to upset the applecart. (Never mind the fact that the individual union members, the teachers themselves, are screaming for reform.) The Republicans never mention it, because they figure it's a Democratic issue. I'd like to believe that if a candidate talked about real education reform, he'd get 70% of the vote. But maybe I'm wrong; maybe people actually don't care about the future.
65 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius,
What Cindy said in Comment #63.
Dan(Miller)
66 - Clavos
Ditto to #63.
OMG! Houston, we have agreement between four (count 'em folks, four) individuals with usually disparate viewpoints on a BC Politics thread!
Stop the presses! We need an extra edition!! Call Rupert!
Takes deep breath, looks around sheepishly, hoping no one noticed fatuous outburst; shuffles off to Buffalo -- or maybe Little Havana.
67 - Cindy D
LOL