Vote or you're stupid

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Vote or you're stupid

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I'm not surprised. There are a lot of dissatisfied republicans in the party that feel they were sold out on key issues such as border security. I feel that way but will still vote because I think it is important to do so. We really live in a self imposed sort of tyranny. When only a portion of the eligible voting age citizens is even registered and even a smaller percentage of those registered actually vote what you get is about 15%-25% of the U.S. population actually making all the decisions. We have had elections in my local county where less then 40% of the registered voters actually showed up to vote. When you consider that only about half of the folks in the county even take the time to register you can see that a small minority of people actually make all the decisions. That's tyranny in my book!

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Not tyranny really... but a hegemony or oligarchy derived from apathy...

arbilad · Head Chef

I know that you, Shiz, consider them to be one and the same, but I encourage people who have decided not to vote to vote for third parties instead. It is, in my mind, taking a positive action. Eventually the strength of a third party will grow enough that we'll not only win local races, but some national ones. Still, we're already affecting public policy, if only on a local level.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

arbilad wrote:

I know that you, Shiz, consider them to be one and the same, but I encourage people who have decided not to vote to vote for third parties instead. It is, in my mind, taking a positive action. Eventually the strength of a third party will grow enough that we'll not only win local races, but some national ones. Still, we're already affecting public policy, if only on a local level.

That would be the Vulcan party right?

I'm sorry, as much as I hate what the repubs have done I can't bring myself to waste my vote on some third party candidate. Have you seen our third party candidates in Nazifornia? Let me see we have the Green party candidate, the communist party candidate, the Peace and Freedom Candidate, the Porn Star Candidate, it's enough to make one want to puke. The third party candidate is no choice at all.

Randy · Senior Member

salesortonscom wrote:

When you consider that only about half of the folks in the county even take the time to register you can see that a small minority of people actually make all the decisions. That's tyranny in my book!

On the other hand, I think it's a mistake to encourage uninformed, apathetic, and clueless people to vote. Why should the swing (controlling) votes belong to those who aren't engaged in the process? Although I agree with the article it's a huge mistake to turn power over to the people who are most dissimilar to your views in order to protest the ones who are more similar to your views, I would rather not encourage voting by the masses. If the uninterested don't want a say in the policies that govern their lives, then frankly they deserve a little tyranny.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Randy wrote:

...If the uninterested don't want a say in the policies that govern their lives, then frankly they deserve a little tyranny.

As Ray would say... Go Satan!

Sorry, I just couldn't contain myself...

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Cat Herder wrote:

Randy wrote:

...If the uninterested don't want a say in the policies that govern their lives, then frankly they deserve a little tyranny.

As Ray would say... Go Satan!

He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good, good old Satan Clause! Ho Ho Ho!

arbilad · Head Chef

Who was it who said that all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing?
The Bretheren have encouraged us to be active in the political process. I've frequently said that if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about how things are going.
If you don't like what the republican party is doing, find something active to do, instead of something passive. Be active in a campaign for a candidate you do like. Run for office yourself. Or vote third party

BTW, Jason, to answer your question, I vote Constitution Party. I forget what they're called out in California. Definitely not Peace and Freeom

I think we should make an artificial island for the feminists to live on. That way they'd have their ideal society (no men), and they'd learn that the worst oppressor most people have is not some other person, but they themselves.

Pt314 · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

BTW, Jason, to answer your question, I vote Constitution Party. I forget what they're called out in California. Definitely not Peace and Freeom I think we should make an artificial island for the feminists to live on. That way they'd have their ideal society (no men), and they'd learn that the worst oppressor most people have is not some other person, but they themselves.

I agree that it is better to vote for a 3rd party than not vote at all, but I think it is only logical to vote for a 3rd party if you cannot perfer one of the primary parties over the other one. Personally I believe that a Democratic victory is a lot worse than a Republican one.

What a conundrum we are in.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

A two-party system often forces me into choosing the "lesser of two evils," and I don't think that's a good principle on which to base democratic government. The only way we'll ever get more than two choices is by supporting a third party. So I'll always vote for the third party that most closely represents what I think government should be about. At this point, it's the Constitution party and it was the Taxpayers party before that (I like the new name better.)

Ya'll can tell me I'm wasting my vote until you're blue in the face--it makes more sense to me than spending 90 seconds voting a straight ticket becasue that's what my folks did, or stupidly choosing not to vote because I'm ticked off at a major party.

Tangentially: These political ideology selectors are a kinda fun diversion.

http://www.selectsmart.com/politics.html

arbilad · Head Chef

I've been doing some thinking. Obviously a portion of the population is too stupid to vote. Some do vote anyway. We really don't want to encourage those who are too stupid to vote. But neither can we deny them the right. If we go down that road, we would inevitably start evaluating ideology as well. For instance, if liberals were in charge of setting the criteria, they would consider a person to be too stupid to vote if he didn't believe that homosexuality is natural and to be encouraged.
So, if you don't set an IQ test in order to vote, how do you encourage smart people to vote? We can't go the path of the founding fathers, who thought that only land owners should vote. There was something to their rational. If you had property, you had to have realistic expectations of how the world worked, and you were more set in reality. But we could never return to that sort of test.
So, you have to find a venue and a method to appeal to intelligent people and encourage them to vote. How do you do that?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I find it interesting that those who do not own property can freely vote to raise or levy property taxes on those that do. Funny how that works. I always thought the property requirement was a good one.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

I like the property requirement too. And with the high levels of home ownership in this day and age, it would be fairly inclusive. And good for Republicans!

-- Edited by fear of shiz at 08:46, 2006-10-19

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I don't know. I understand what we understand the reasoning behind why certain restrictions were in place in the past for who could and who could not vote, but I think it is wrong to say you or you can not vote because we think you are not capable of voting wisely. Which essentially is what is being suggested by you guys, Arbi and Jason. As was alluded to, it opens the door to redefinition of what criterion qualifies someone as being eligible to vote in the first place. The voting franchise should be open to all citizens that qualify per the law.

Now, I have no problem with the concept of limiting the pool of voters that can vote on a law to those who would be the most impacted by the proposed law... say, if it is a tax increase to property taxes, then the vote should be limited to those who own property. When we still lived in rental housing, I would typically and consistently vote against tax increases to property taxes unless it was a truely compelling need (e.g. special education millage or similar) that was not superfolous need (like bike paths) and not an increase to taxes (replacement levies as opposed to additional levies). Why would I do this? Because I knew someday we would be a property owner and would be liable for paying those taxes and that would increase the mortgage payment for me as well possibly to the point we couldn't afford to buy in the community we choose.

Pt314 · Senior Member

Interesting, on that one political test Roper linked to, I ended up like this.

(100%) 1: CONSERVATIVE (REPUBLICAN PARTY)
(96%) 2: VERY CONSERVATIVE (CONSTITUTION PARTY)
(65%) 3: MODERATE (DEMOCRATIC PARTY)
(30%) 4: LIBERAL (GREEN PARTY)
(30%) 5: VERY LIBERAL (SOCIALIST PARTY)

Randy · Senior Member

Here's mine.

(100%) 1: VERY CONSERVATIVE (CONSTITUTION PARTY)

(83%) 2: CONSERVATIVE (REPUBLICAN PARTY)

(46%) 3: MODERATE (DEMOCRATIC PARTY)

(19%) 4: LIBERAL (GREEN PARTY)

(19%) 5: VERY LIBERAL (SOCIALIST PARTY)

Gosh, a test that was posted on Nauvoo had me slightly right of center. Different test, I guess.

-- Edited by Randy at 15:26, 2006-10-20

-- Edited by Randy at 15:26, 2006-10-20

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I tried several, and didn't find any that listed %'s. Most of them I was very suspicous of because the questions were worded very leadingly... One had me listed as a Thatcher liberal, another had me listed as a libertarian, and another had me listed as a very conservative with neo-conservative and paleo-conservative... whatever... waste of time and wasn't any fun for me.

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 15:53, 2006-10-20

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I will vote a straight Constitution Party ticket here in Utah, and encourage others to consider doing the same. I've given my reasons in other posts here, which seem not well received.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Ah, come on there lundbaek buddy... lighten up a bit. No need to get yer knickers in a knot just because some of us younger folk (and I clearly am one of those you're referring to) find the intensity of some of the views expressed in your earlier posts a bit strong. No one is begrudging you the right to your views and opinions. How goes things in the FH Library?

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

In response to several (but mainly Cat's) posts:

People who rent pay property taxes, just indirectly. And they don't get the tax benefits that homeowners do like being able to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes.

Shouldn't people who will benefit or be hurt by a policy (and not just those who will pay for it) have the right to vote on it?

Bike paths superfluos? Let's see...they can help reduce urban gridlock, help reduce polution from auto emissions, help reduce our dependence on oil, encourage people to improve health by commuting by bicycle or riding for pleasure, and make it much safer for scouts to earn their cycling merit badge--I just spent this weekend leading a 40-mile bicycle trip (20 out, camp overnight, 20 back) with our troop and almost all of it was done on bike paths. I'd much rather spend money on that than on widening an existing road by two lanes to accomodate increased vehicle traffic to the new Wal Mart.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Roper wrote:

People who rent pay property taxes, just indirectly. And they don't get the tax benefits that homeowners do like being able to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes.

Shouldn't people who will benefit or be hurt by a policy (and not just those who will pay for it) have the right to vote on it?

Yep. I do believe that personally. All who are eligible to vote in an area where a tax is going to impact should be able to. I also believe that there should be some sort of equivalent to mortgage interest deductions for renters, as typically renters are paying (at least in my community) nearly as much as a house payment and get no assistance come tax time, and the renters are generally the ones who would gain a getter economic shot in the arm sort of boost by being able to reduce taxes with something like a mortgage deduction.

Bike paths superfluos? Let's see...they can help reduce urban gridlock, help reduce polution from auto emissions, help reduce our dependence on oil, encourage people to improve health by commuting by bicycle or riding for pleasure,

blah blah blah

Those things will only work if the community actually utilizes them widely, and the paths are not just in a few select upper class neighborhoods. I'm speaking from the experience of where we live where bike paths are recreational useage at best. The things (with the exception of the recreational aspect you last mention) that would best take care of the first three things in our area would be mass transit. Unfortunately, for being one of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation, any mass transit is practically non-existant, and forever will be so long as the Big Three automaker mentality exists that every house needs at least 3 vehicles. And when you can have tax levies put in place to maintain or expand bike paths when you as a city can't even figure out how to plow snow off streets in the winter because you're in a "budget crisis" (actually you're subtley punishing the community as was proven by reporters because voters didn't agree to a tax increase so the city could have more funds) since city council went ahead and spent several tens of millions of dollars unilaterally to rebuild city hall without putting it to the public for a vote and then went ahead and built a sub-station for the county sherriff and a new district courthouse when the county should have funded these if they "really" needed them so bad, even though the voters of the community clearly voted those down soundly in a referendum, that is pretty superfolous.

...make it much safer for scouts to earn their cycling merit badge--I just spent this weekend leading a 40-mile bicycle trip (20 out, camp overnight, 20 back) with our troop and almost all of it was done on bike paths. I'd much rather spend money on that than on widening an existing road by two lanes to accomodate increased vehicle traffic to the new Wal Mart.

Ah but the problem there is that this is clearly a seperation of church and state issue, because the Scouts as an organization support the belief in God and can't be utilizing public facilities due to their discrimination against homosexuals and atheists. Therefore, bike paths a bad. New Walmarts (which don't discriminate against those individuals) are good...

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat, I'm in agreement with you 100% on the mass transit issue.

My anecdotal evidence on the bike path issue is just as valid as yours, however. In my city, the over 30 miles of paved trails run along the river, through several parks, through downtown, and branch into several well-populated neighborhoods. Not only are they well-utilized for recreation and exercise (which are two perfectly good reasons for investing in them) but also they provide a way to commute for those who choose to do so (which, granted, is a very small minority, but I'm one of them!) Additionally, Fort Worth likes to highlight their "Trinity Trails" project as one of the major draws to the city.

Who knows, maybe if your city invested more in bike paths, you would attract a lot of those left-coasters who like that kind of stuff and don't mind paying higher taxes for them.

Randy · Senior Member

lundbaek wrote:

I will vote a straight Constitution Party ticket here in Utah, and encourage others to consider doing the same. I've given my reasons in other posts here, which seem not well received.

If by "not well received" you mean that you have not changed a lot of minds, or that people have concerns about what you say, that may very well be accurate. But if there has been any hostility or belittling of you or your stated positions, I've missed it. I don't suppose I've changed a lot of minds either, certainly not yours, but I do think it's good to have some dialog.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

I have a certain philosophy regarding the vote. If I find both parties distasteful, or I cannot find a candidate that I am able to agree with, I will not vote. Nor will I complain beyond stating that no group, leader or party properly represents the positions I find to be important. I do not think its as simple as "vote or you are stupid", I think it is more complicated.

I refer to the scriptures as a help. Consider Jeroboam the first leader of the northern kingdom. He was actually a very good leader, better than Rehoboam. But both tended towards idolatry, and in fact, Jeroboam set up false idol worship in order to supplant the need to go to the temple in the Rehoboam or Judaic kingdom. This would nullify my desire to vote simply because a good leader that does unrighteous things is no better than a righteous bad leader (Rehoboam was not even righteous though). The lesser of two evils is an excellent tool that is sometimes used in politics, and sometimes used by Satan. The question is how far you are willing to go down that slope.

Now to complicate things, consider how Mormon, the prophet-general leads an unrighteous nation of Nephites. In effect he chose the opposite stance I would have chosen, by helping an unrighteous, or more unrighteous people, fight against a less unrighteous people. What were Mormon's thought processes in the decision? How was it justified? I think about that sometimes. But the point here is he remained engaged, even though the nation he represented provided no good alternative. Of course the difference is he led, and did not choose beyond a willingness to lead.

This versus those who do not lead, but must still choose.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Roper wrote:

In response to several (but mainly Cat's) posts:

People who rent pay property taxes, just indirectly. And they don't get the tax benefits that homeowners do like being able to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes.

Shouldn't people who will benefit or be hurt by a policy (and not just those who will pay for it) have the right to vote on it?

Bike paths superfluos? Let's see...they can help reduce urban gridlock, help reduce polution from auto emissions, help reduce our dependence on oil, encourage people to improve health by commuting by bicycle or riding for pleasure, and make it much safer for scouts to earn their cycling merit badge--I just spent this weekend leading a 40-mile bicycle trip (20 out, camp overnight, 20 back) with our troop and almost all of it was done on bike paths. I'd much rather spend money on that than on widening an existing road by two lanes to accomodate increased vehicle traffic to the new Wal Mart.

True renters pay but they never get the actual bill. I think if they got the bill then they would be less likely to vote for the latest bond measure. In California there is a bond measure right now for an additional $50 per parcel to fund something rediculuos. $50 may not seem like much but all of the farms including my family's are made up of multiple parcells. It could mean thousands of additional dollars per year for us in extra taxes. Send a renter a few of these bills and see if they will be so quick to vote for them. I firmly believe that if the federal govt. sent people income tax bills for the whole amount instead of having businesses take out the taxes a little at a time from their paychecks, then there would be riots in the streets. Because people have mentally checked into the idea that my real pay is my net pay and they don't have to write the check for the whole amount in April, they don't seem to care.

As for bike paths, I watched the county put one in on one street and then turn two other roads into gravel because of a lack of road funds so I'm not big on bike paths since both of those roads were streets I needed to use.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

That additional tax would in effect reduce or even potentially destroy the Proposition 13 tax limits that keep the state from substantially raising property taxes.

The original founding fathers felt that only white male property owners could vote because these are the people who had a stake in government. It comes down to a question of how much you want to limit the franchise. Property owners for example, they tend to take better care of the community thatn rentors who have less of a stake.

Randy · Senior Member

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Now to complicate things, consider how Mormon, the prophet-general leads an unrighteous nation of Nephites. In effect he chose the opposite stance I would have chosen, by helping an unrighteous, or more unrighteous people, fight against a less unrighteous people. What were Mormon's thought processes in the decision? How was it justified? I think about that sometimes.

As far as choosing which side to support in the war, I would have made the same choice that Mormon made on the grounds that the nation has the right to repel an invasive aggressor. If I am reading the scriptures correctly, the Lamanites were the aggressors in this case.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

That additional tax would in effect reduce or even potentially destroy the Proposition 13 tax limits that keep the state from substantially raising property taxes.

The original founding fathers felt that only white male property owners could vote because these are the people who had a stake in government. It comes down to a question of how much you want to limit the franchise. Property owners for example, they tend to take better care of the community thatn rentors who have less of a stake.

The name of the game now seems to be to find ways to get around prop 13 limits. They already made it easier to raise certain taxes by lowering the supermajority down via a ballot initiative a couple years ago. There must be at least six different bond initiatives on the California ballot this election. Crazy!

Then you have Jerry Brown running for AG and not meeting the minimum attourney time required by law. He'll win and then the legislature will pass something to allow him to have the job. What a joke.

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 14:32, 2006-10-23

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Randy wrote:

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Now to complicate things, consider how Mormon, the prophet-general leads an unrighteous nation of Nephites. In effect he chose the opposite stance I would have chosen, by helping an unrighteous, or more unrighteous people, fight against a less unrighteous people. What were Mormon's thought processes in the decision? How was it justified? I think about that sometimes.

As far as choosing which side to support in the war, I would have made the same choice that Mormon made on the grounds that the nation has the right to repel an invasive aggressor. If I am reading the scriptures correctly, the Lamanites were the aggressors in this case.

I don't know about that. From what I read, the Nephites were the aggressors, its just that the war turned against them.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Initially, the Lamanites were the aggressors. But, then the Nephites became aggressors and stopped giving any semblence of reliance on The Lord as well. And that is when Mormon stepped down. He returned to command when either he realized there was no hope left for the Nephite civilization / nation and his sense of duty to them over came his anger and disgust, or because The Lord instructed him to do so so that in the deaths of the few remaining righteous Nephites, the destruction and punishment from The Lord on the nation would indeed be completely just. We are talking perhaps a total period of several decades from Mormon first taking command to the final destruction.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

And now for something completely different:

The concept of renters paying property taxes got me thinking about this. If we all had to pay taxes like self-employed folks do--writing out a check to the gubment for a few grand every quarter--we'd all be screaming for tax reform in a few months. (Now that's something I could get passionate about.) But since it magically disappears from paychecks before we ever see it, it's like it never really existed. Until you file in April and get majorly ticked off at all the money that was taken out, but then it's too late to do anything and the pain recedes over the next few weeks...lather, rinse, repeat.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Cat Herder wrote:

Initially, the Lamanites were the aggressors. But, then the Nephites became aggressors and stopped giving any semblence of reliance on The Lord as well. And that is when Mormon stepped down. He returned to command when either he realized there was no hope left for the Nephite civilization / nation and his sense of duty to them over came his anger and disgust, or because The Lord instructed him to do so so that in the deaths of the few remaining righteous Nephites, the destruction and punishment from The Lord on the nation would indeed be completely just. We are talking perhaps a total period of several decades from Mormon first taking command to the final destruction.

Yes, my point was that they were even worse off, and he returned to command over them. It was probably a sense of duty, but in effect, it means his sense of duty trumps leading a less righteousness people. He may have beseeched the Lord and the Lord allowed him, versus commanded him to lead the nation. I am not sure how many righteous Nephites there were, or whether or not the Lord allowed Mormon to lead as a method of being "completely righteous", since he certainly didn't do that with the Israelites or others. I think Christ spoke clearly on this (as well as Job) when he spoke of the parable in which the temple workers died when a wall collapsed (or something like that

)

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Roper wrote:

And now for something completely different:

The concept of renters paying property taxes got me thinking about this. If we all had to pay taxes like self-employed folks do--writing out a check to the gubment for a few grand every quarter--we'd all be screaming for tax reform in a few months. (Now that's something I could get passionate about.) But since it magically disappears from paychecks before we ever see it, it's like it never really existed. Until you file in April and get majorly ticked off at all the money that was taken out, but then it's too late to do anything and the pain recedes over the next few weeks...lather, rinse, repeat.

Yea, do you think the masses would put up with it? I think that if the folks had to write a check every quarter then we might actually get real tax code simplification and reform. I remember a news report a few years back where a guy from the news station had six different professional tax preparation services do his taxes. They ranged from the large chains, mom and pops, to large accounting firms. He recieved six different returns. The reporter then took them to an IRS employee and asked which of the six was correct. None of them were right and the IRS created a 7th return that was correct. Now if six professional tax prepairers can't get it right, what are the odds that a regular person with regular intelligence could do it?

arbilad · Head Chef

Roper wrote:

And now for something completely different:

The concept of renters paying property taxes got me thinking about this. If we all had to pay taxes like self-employed folks do--writing out a check to the gubment for a few grand every quarter--we'd all be screaming for tax reform in a few months. (Now that's something I could get passionate about.) But since it magically disappears from paychecks before we ever see it, it's like it never really existed. Until you file in April and get majorly ticked off at all the money that was taken out, but then it's too late to do anything and the pain recedes over the next few weeks...lather, rinse, repeat.

That reminds me of something

Glenn Beck

did on his program last April. He asked his producer and everyone else in the studio how much they had paid in taxes. They answered various things such as they had got money back, or they had to pay some money, or a lot, or whatever. Glenn then pointed out that he wasn't asking about April 15th, he was asking about taxes in total. His experiment prove what you're saying, that we don't feel it when it comes out of our paycheck. We don't think about it much.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

That is why no one said much about the sugar tax, but when the stamp act came into play, it was a direct tax and everyone noticed immediately. It accelerated the steps towards revolution and gave the radicals like Sam Adams a tool to use in order to forment more revolution. By the way, Benjamin Franklin tried to get his friend a job as tax collector for the Stamp Act, he was actually a late comer to the revolution (around 1773 or 1774).

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Okay, I think I understand what is being said here. Indirect taxation, we don't really feel the pain on that. But direct taxation, you betcha...

So, let's list all the sorts of taxes we get hit with, be it federal, state, or local (or even sub-local like a home owners / subdivision fee) and identify them as direct or indirect, and the level of pain associated with each.