# Should voting be compulsory ?



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

It's not in the US, correct?

It is compulsory in Australia for a general election, I don't think it will happen in the UK.

I was set against it, until an Australian told me that he thought there was no chance in the UK " because the politicians would have to do what the public wants ".

In the UK over the last fifty years there have been four or five major issues where the varying goverments have ignored the wishes of the vast majority, including blocking proposals for specific referendums.

Now, I can see a possible virtue to compulsion, whether the theory could actually filter through into meaningful practice I am not sure and wonder if there's any appetite anywhere else.
F.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

No it shouldn't be. I think that just causes more apathetic and uninformed voters to vote. If people don't want to vote, don't make them - it could lead to potentially worse leaders.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

YES, And in recognition instead of those stupid " I've voted, have You?' stickers every voter should be given a M 16 and a case of ammo.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Kav said:


> YES, And in recognition instead of those stupid " I've voted, have You?' stickers every voter should be given a M 16 and a case of ammo.


or a 9mm and one round.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Think about it: people have been given the power to participate at some level in who runs their country. There are people who choose not to exercise that right. Do you really want those people participating in the choice of who leads the country you live in?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Good question. Another good question is, should it be strictly one person, one vote?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Good question. Another good question is, should it be strictly one person, one vote?


How else would you do it?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> How else would you do it?


Just not one person, one vote. I am open to suggestions from there.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Just not one person, one vote. I am open to suggestions from there.


Well, I can't think of another way that would be any good.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Well, I can't think of another way that would be any good.


Why not?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Why not?


Because I think the only thing that should matter in a person's vote counting is their being engaged in the process. You can think one way and I can think another, one of us thinks better, but, if you believe in the democratic process, our clashing gets a better result than if there were just the one of us who thought better. At the same time, the thoughts have to be real and honest (which is why you need the engagement aspect).


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> our clashing gets a better result than if there were just the one of us who thought better


Actually, it only gets you a more _popular_ result.

Would you like a sampling of some of the bad ideas in human history that have been wildly popular?



> At the same time, the thoughts have to be real and honest (which is why you need the engagement aspect).


If it's engagement you want, then how about a qualifying exam?

It'd be easy -- just use the tests we used to give to people who applied to become naturalized citizens.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Phinn said:


> Then how's about a qualifying exam?
> 
> It'd be easy -- just use the tests we used to give to people who applied to become naturalized citizens.


The problem with those sorts of things isn't necessarily that there is a test at all, but what people will do with those tests. I think the right to vote is too important to hope that whoever grades the tests will do so honestly (or that the tests themselves will be fair).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> You can think one way and I can think another, one of us thinks better, but, if you believe in the democratic process, our clashing gets a better result than if there were just the one of us who thought better.


So you are trying to state that combining two ideas or opinions, one inherently worse than the other, that this result somehow is superior? Odd reasoning.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> The problem with those sorts of things isn't necessarily that there is a test at all, but what people will do with those tests. I think the right to vote is too important to hope that whoever grades the tests will do so honestly (or that the tests themselves will be fair).


Yeah, because questions like, "Name the three branches of government" is so biased. And a multiple choice of these would be so open to manipulation. 

You are the one that spoke of needing to be engaged. How would you propose to measure this?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> So you are trying to state that combining two ideas or opinions, one inherently worse than the other, that this result somehow is superior? Odd reasoning.


I think it's the process of people arguing for their their opinion (and I think argument is in human nature) that results in the better end result (voting is more than just going to the polls on election day).


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Yeah, because questions like, "Name the three branches of government" is so biased. And a multiple choice of these would be so open to manipulation.
> 
> You are the one that spoke of needing to be engaged. How would you propose to measure this?


Perfection is the enemy of the good. By having voting be voluntary and making it a little bit of a pain in the butt, I think you weed out a lot of the unengaged. Sometimes you just have to settle for good enough.

First, the tests would have to be left to each state, so how could you ensure each state would do it right (put in guidelines and some state is bound to cry federalism...not to make light of states rights, just pointing out what would happen).

Second, there's also the problem of the grader saying to themselves "hmm....Ahmad Sharif, you fail. Jamal Washington, you fail. John Smith, that name sounds non-minority, you pass."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I think it's the process of people arguing for their their opinion (and I think argument is in human nature) that results in the better end result (voting is more than just going to the polls on election day).


So then, you would say that somehow, the process of say, me tying up someone in logical knots over relativism somehow created a better result? I mean, nothing in my mind changed, as I already knew it was not valid, and apparently it only made the other person more invested in his opinion. If put to a vote, nothing changed.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> Think about it: people have been given the power to participate at some level in who runs their country. There are people who *choose not to exercise that right*. Do you really want those people participating in the choice of who leads the country you live in?


No, but.
Is there not an issue that the reason many people "choose not to exercise that right" is because a deep sceptism has grown to the point that they believe their wishes will be ignored anyway.

Even our (UK) politicians have become (or profess to being) concerned at the falling turnout at recent elections, though there maybe many disputed reasons for this trend, most agree it indicates a lack of 'feeling involved' on the part of the general public.

My instincts are that the reason for lower turnouts here, is not apathy or laziness, but a growing feeling of powerlessness(sp).

Watching the tv earlier I got the impression that Big Tuesday is an event that inspires a larger part of the public in America, much more than a 'similar' event here, this could imply there is more confidence in the system.

I admit I have little idea what the stats are for the US and have no way of knowing if it's just a media jamboree, but I was impressed with a tv show from The States, more than two months ago, when candidates where lined up in front of a live audience and quizzed about their policies in a two hour special.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Military service or of some kind (for passivists) should be compulsory. If it was, making voting compulsory wouldn't be required.
Armed Forces or Peace Corp maybe.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

FWIW, it's Super Tuesday. We have quite low voter turnout, BUT it has been rising in recent years rather than falling. I think the American reaction is to first get apathetic, then get angry, and shortly thereafter get up to do something.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> First, the tests would have to be left to each state, so how could you ensure each state would do it right (put in guidelines and some state is bound to cry federalism...not to make light of states rights, just pointing out what would happen).


Alright, we can see you have no true belief in the US notion of States' Rights and the enumerated powers.



marlinspike said:


> Second, there's also the problem of the grader saying to themselves "hmm....Ahmad Sharif, you fail. Jamal Washington, you fail. John Smith, that name sounds non-minority, you pass."


And we can see you have no trust in (presumably) white people.

You are quite the upstanding citizen, obviously fully engaged. Not to mention a little racist and rather simple in your views.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Military service or of some kind (for passivists) should be compulsory. If it was, making voting compulsory wouldn't be required.
> Armed Forces or Peace Corp maybe.


I don't know many in the military who would welcome conscription.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Alright, we can see you have no true belief in the US notion of States' Rights and the enumerated powers.
> 
> And we can see you have no trust in (presumably) white people.
> 
> You are quite the upstanding citizen, obviously fully engaged. Not to mention a little racist and rather simple in your views.


You're just trying to get me angry, aren't you? As I said, I don't make light of the federal system, but the reality is if they made regulations regarding a voter eligibility test, the state governments would be angry. BTW, if you ever meet me in person you'll soon learn I find great importance in state's rights.

No, non-whites can be untrustworthy as well. You have to ask yourself two questions. First, how long do you want my posts to be? If you want me to list every example, they're going to go out to infinity. I find it funny that you think I don't trust white people. Second, how much opportunity is there for oppression of majority rights by a minority?

How is recognizing that racism exists racist?

Do you really want the full gamut of complexity in an internet post? If so, just a warning, I won't be the one to give it to you (life is too short to spend this much time typing).


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> So then, you would say that somehow, the process of say, me tying up someone in logical knots over relativism somehow created a better result? I mean, nothing in my mind changed, as I already knew it was not valid, and apparently it only made the other person more invested in his opinion. If put to a vote, nothing changed.


Obviously it doesn't happen every time two people argue. In fact, I'd wager it rarely happens where two people are concerned. I'm talking about in the grand scheme. A and and B argue. A and B tell other people. Other people argue amongst each other. People start to take certain parts of each other's arguments and/or develop their own argument further. Over a long period of time, perhaps after A and B are dead, some better ideas than those had by A and B come forward.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> You're just trying to get me angry, aren't you?


If my drawing logical conclusions from your posts makes you angry, while I am not trying to make you angry, I feel it is doomed to occur.



marlinspike said:


> No, non-whites can be untrustworthy as well. You have to ask yourself two questions. First, how long do you want my posts to be? If you want me to list every example, they're going to go out to infinity. I find it funny that you think I don't trust white people. Second, how much opportunity is there for oppression of majority rights by a minority?


To your second question first: there are many areas in the US now where whites, still the overall majority, are minorities. There is plenty of opportunity.

To your first point, it was a very pointed example when an example in such concrete terms really was not needed. However, as your second point maintains that white people will have the power to reject based on names, it makes your attempts at saying this is not aimed at whites egregiously specious.

So, are you angry now? Is this not the process you just said would yield in a better result? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Obviously it doesn't happen every time two people argue. In fact, I'd wager it rarely happens where two people are concerned. I'm talking about in the grand scheme. A and and B argue. A and B tell other people. Other people argue amongst each other. People start to take certain parts of each other's arguments and/or develop their own argument further. Over a long period of time, perhaps after A and B are dead, some better ideas than those had by A and B come forward.


If we are speaking grand scheme suddenly, how then does this rule out the thought of an alternative system of one person, one vote? It does not logically.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

I'm rarely angry. What I said is I think you're just trying to get me angry, i.e. you're just arguing with me for the sake of argument.

Even if I grant that there is plenty of opportunity, there certainly isn't enough opportunity that the one example of discrimination I give should be reverse discrimination.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> If we are speaking grand scheme suddenly, how then does this rule out the thought of an alternative system of one person, one vote? It does not logically.


Can you give an example of an alternate system that would work so that I can see what you mean?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I'm rarely angry. What I said is I think you're just trying to get me angry, i.e. you're just arguing with me for the sake of argument


No, I am engaged in the process. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Can you give an example of an alternate system that would work so that I can see what you mean?


No I cannot. I was quite surprised though that you would rule any other alternative out so quickly though.

Maybe you get extra votes based on certain things demonstrating your concept of engagement in the process? Military services, public service, volunteering at non-profits?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Slavery, indentured servitude, military impressment; these are reasons our ancestors came to America.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I don't know many in the military who would welcome conscription.


Conscription historically means a government forcing service only during a time of war. In our country conscription is known largely as the draft. Drafts are discriminatory by definition.

I'm speaking more of something along the lines of what the Israelis do. It would certainly help end disputes about what "the whole of the militia" is for example. I think there should be options for other things, but by and large America should be more self-perpetuating than it has been. We seem to keep rewarding the self-absorbed and self-destructive behaviors. I said I'm willing to negotiate for Peace Corp or America Corp instead of military service, but our implicit bargain is far too one-sided.

I think issues such as making college more affordable would also become much simpler. One huge problem we have is the demand for higher education by children that have no idea what they are going to do with it. It's ridiculous IMHO. Perhaps in the end demand would go up, but at least it would be in response to market forces and individual choice rather than boredom, parental pressure, and apathy.

OTOH, I am willing to compromise. I'll trade you compulsory service for the welfare state.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> No I cannot. I was quite surprised though that you would rule any other alternative out so quickly though.
> 
> Maybe you get extra votes based on certain things demonstrating your concept of engagement in the process? Military services, public service, volunteering at non-profits?


This system has been around enough and is common sense enough that I think the presumption should be against an alternative - that's why I dismiss that possibility. If someone can come up with one though, I'm all ears.

I think the problem with looking at various forms of service is that it would cause people to act inefficiently. Some people are best suited to work in the private sector.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I think the problem with looking at various forms of service is that it would cause people to act inefficiently. Some people are best suited to work in the private sector.


That is why I mentioned volunteering. Do you not volunteer your time for worthy causes? If we find working in the private sector worthy, make having a job one of the criteria by which you can get additional votes.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Conscription historically means a government forcing service only during a time of war. In our country conscription is known largely as the draft. Drafts are discriminatory by definition.


Hmmm, I always thought conscription was just any involtunary service, but especially into the military.

Either way, in addition to the watering down of the armed forces (though I suppose peace corps and such leave an outlet), I still have a problem with the inefficient use of people. Also, I think in the absence of a frontier it's important that we allow people who don't want to fall in line the choice ot to.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> That is why I mentioned volunteering. Do you not volunteer your time for worthy causes?


I do, but I could put in more public service if I dropped out of school. One could argue that a empty-nester homemaker's time is better spent volunteering than the time of a Fortune500 CEO would be for instance. Also, I don't think (though I could be wrong) military service is open to quadriplegics. The avenues to getting votes points would have to be equally open to everybody. Also, how many points will each type of thing be worth? I just don't think it's workable.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I think the problem with looking at various forms of service is that it would cause people to act inefficiently. Some people are best suited to work in the private sector.


The problem with that argument is the number of 17, 18, & 19 year olds that work in the private sector and provide any value at all, much less efficiently, is almost zero.

In addition, competition in higher education and the private sector highly prize any type of service for many reasons.

You're implyng this represents a life altering commitment to public service for life at the expense of the private sector. I think it would help young people mature and make more conscious decisions about their education and their private sector careers that would cause people to act much more efficiently.

Take for example the same people at age 22. I think if you compared two samples my group would accomplish more from 20-22 in every area of their lives than your group does from 18-22. Most of your group would still be working at Subway. Even in an MBA program my opinion was 1 in every 5 or 10 had any clue about anything. Most are just "book smart" and not very much.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> The problem with that argument is the number of 17, 18, & 19 year olds that work in the private sector and provide any value at all, much less efficiently, is almost zero.
> 
> In addition, competition in higher education and the private sector highly prize any type of service for many reasons.
> 
> ...


NB: the portion of text you quoted was in response to Wayfarer's suggestion that public service increase the number of votes a person has. The voting population is a different population from that which would be up for compulsory service.

BTW, I agree with you that most people in college shouldn't be there, but I think a lot of them would be better off working as, for instance, a plumber's apprentice than they are by being in college or would be by being in the military (or peace corps).

Granted in Germany the youth are largely corrupted by the extent of the Sozialstaat, but if you look to Germany by making the exceptions that I think you'd agree are necessary for pacifists, the concept of compulsory service has really become holiday time for many. Also, because these are watered-down ranks, what they ended up doing there is the compulsory people don't get the same level of training. Friends of mine in Germany who did their compulsory service in the military have said the training they got didn't teach them anything useful. The same wouldn't necessarily happen here, but I think it's worth keeping in mind.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> NB: the portion of text you quoted was in response to Wayfarer's suggestion that public service increase the number of votes a person has. The voting population is a different population from that which would be up for compulsory service.
> 
> BTW, I agree with you that most people in college shouldn't be there, but I think a lot of them would be better off working as, for instance, a plumber's apprentice than they are by being in college or would be by being in the military (or peace corps).
> 
> Granted in Germany the youth are largely corrupted by the extent of the Sozialstaat, but if you look to Germany by making the exceptions that I think you'd agree are necessary for pacifists, the concept of compulsory service has really become holiday time for many. Also, because these are watered-down ranks, what they ended up doing there is the compulsory people don't get the same level of training. Friends of mine in Germany who did their compulsory service in the military have said the training they got didn't teach them anything useful. The same wouldn't necessarily happen here, but I think it's worth keeping in mind.





marlinspike said:


> Hmmm, I always thought conscription was just any involtunary service, but especially into the military.
> 
> Either way, in addition to the watering down of the armed forces (though I suppose peace corps and such leave an outlet), I still have a problem with the inefficient use of people. Also, I think in the absence of a frontier it's important that we allow people who don't want to fall in line the choice ot to.


I was confused because you also had the second post about inefficiency responding to me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Hmmm, I always thought conscription was just any involtunary service, but especially into the military.
> 
> Either way, in addition to the watering down of the armed forces (though I suppose peace corps and such leave an outlet), I still have a problem with the inefficient use of people. Also, I think in the absence of a frontier it's important that we allow people who don't want to fall in line the choice ot to.


Yes, that is what conscription means. You answered the issue of compulsory service by saying you never heard a military man for conscription or WTTE.

What I said was "historically", in this country we have only "conscripted" during times of war; the so-called the draft.

So, when you ask a military man about conscription the context of that word is not the same as across the board compulsory service for two years; like say the Israelis do.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I was confused because you also had the second post about inefficiency responding to me.


Right, and I still think there will be inefficient use of people. As inefficient as everybody and their brother going to college, no, but still inefficiencies and I don't think the government should compel inefficiency.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The problem with that argument is the number of 17, 18, & 19 year olds that work in the private sector and provide any value at all, much less efficiently, is almost zero.
> 
> In addition, competition in higher education and the private sector highly prize any type of service for many reasons.
> 
> ...


Wow, ksinc. We actually agree on something. I do think that this idea of a year or two of volunteer service would help with students career choices. For example, what a great way for a young person to decide if a career in medicine is actually for them than to do volunteer work related to healthcare.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

It should be mandatory, but voters should have a none of the above choice.
perhaps a tax incentive, you get $500 back if you vote.

Even better if you didnt pay any taxes, than you don't get anythign back!

I firmly believe if you dont pay taxes, you shouldnt vote or at least you should get one vote for every $10,000. you pay in taxes.
So politicians can see than 50 million voters went to the polls and said I'm voting so you better listen to me next time!


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

No. In a free country, people also have the right not to care/vote.

I just don't want to hear them kvetching about it later.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> One could argue that a empty-nester homemaker's time is better spent volunteering than the time of a Fortune500 CEO would be for instance.


That would be a very unwise argument to make. Nonsensical even.



marlinspike said:


> The avenues to getting votes points would have to be equally open to everybody.


Why? Life is not equally open to everybody. We are all limited by choices we make. This is also basic economics. Possibly if the voting public were tied tighter to these concepts, the country would be in better shape.



marlinspike said:


> Also, how many points will each type of thing be worth?* I just don't think it's workable.*


Okay, this just goes to show your basic lack of clarity in your positions and your thinking. It is what happens when you want to have your cake and eat it too, to use a phrase. Why do I say this about you? Well, are you not the person that recently said this?



marlinspike said:


> Perfection is the enemy of the good.


So I find it hard how on one hand you dismiss something as you think it will be unworkable and on the other hand, in the very same thread, your reply would be the above. You just cannot have it both ways.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

One has worked fairly decently, has overall public approval, creates a gut reaction of fairness, the other is a new concept. There is a presumption in favor of the existing condition. The first works, just not perfectly, the other I said I don't think would be *work*able.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I do, but I could put in more public service if I dropped out of school. One could argue that a empty-nester homemaker's time is better spent volunteering than the time of a Fortune500 CEO would be for instance.


So what? Your argument for efficiency is beginning to sound like a planned economy.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

No, it shouldn't be compulsory. The last thing this country needs is more laws and regulations, but I am intrigued by the concept. 

First and foremost, if voting were made compulsory, it would be an administrative nightmare. What are you going to do if someone can't or doesn't vote? Throw them in prison? Fine them heavily? The judicial system in the U.S. is already bursting at the seams with scores of frivilous, insidpid lawsuits...this would just add to the problem. Of course, I am quite sure the legal profession would love it...another revenue stream as The Wronged sue the government over their rights to vote or, in this case, NOT vote.

We are living in a participatory democracy after all. Having the right to not vote, as distasteful and disheartening as it is to some, is just that...a right.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> One has worked fairly decently, has overall public approval, creates a gut reaction of fairness, the other is a new concept. There is a presumption in favor of the existing condition. The first works, just not perfectly, the other I said I don't think would be *work*able.


Just about everything you say here could, at one time, be said about slavery. The only one that might be arguable is the "gut reaction of fairness" in some quarters, but then again, I think it is presumptious to apply that to our current voting system too.

So, are you not glad that none of this inertia kept slavery in effect?


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*incentive based...*



TMMKC said:


> No, it shouldn't be compulsory. The last thing this country needs is more laws and regulations, but I am intrigued by the concept.


What about incentive based.............think about tax rebate for those of you who pay federal income tax.

I do not, _I got people_.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> What about incentive based.............think about tax rebate for those of you who pay federal income tax.
> 
> I do not, _I got people_.


In all due respect Ron, are you talking about bribery?:icon_smile_big:

Seriously, though I don't have any research at hand to back it up, I would think a lot of people who regularly pay taxes are voters anyway. Incentivising those who don't pay taxes (because they don't make enough income, for example) to vote may sound good in principle, but it creates a slippery slope. Handing out entitlements in the form of tax rebates might buy enough votes to help a populist POTUS candidate get elected, but it gums up the system. What happens if/when these peoples' income rises enough that they start paying taxes? They lose their incentive...then what? Hope they vote out of a sense of honor (as they should, but we know many don't)? I think it creates a dangerous precedent.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Just about everything you say here could, at one time, be said about slavery. The only one that might be arguable is the "gut reaction of fairness" in some quarters, but then again, I think it is presumptious to apply that to our current voting system too.
> 
> So, are you not glad that none of this inertia kept slavery in effect?


I think the gut reaction is important. Also, ending slavery gave rights to more people. The proposed system takes a right away from some people.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I think the gut reaction is important. Also, ending slavery gave rights to more people. The proposed system takes a right away from some people.


First, what right would it take from people? I have not proposed removing *the right to vote* from anyone.

Second, if it is now just "gut reactions", all the other criteria you formerly listed were just window dressing? Fluff? And again, at one time in the US, I am sure the "gut reaction" was that such people's rightful spot was slavery. It changed over time. Making the primary criteria something that can so easily change is foolish IMO. Even 50 years ago, the gut reaction was a woman's spot is in the home. Try floating that one today.

Third, you are trying to ignore all the other points I have raised you have yet to successfully rebut. You still have not really rebutted your double talk on applying to the old saw about perfection being the enemy of the good then claiming just the opposite in another answer.

Marlin, you are going to make a great lawyer. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I think the gut reaction is important. Also, ending slavery gave rights to more people. The proposed system takes a right away from some people.


I disagree, but I think this highlights the differences such as if rights come from our Creator. I believe they do and I believe this is a foundational principle of America.

Therefore; I do not believe ending slavery gave rights to people. I believe slavery violated the rights of people. Ending slavery simply removed an impediment to the exercise of those right, but it was not complete. Look at life from 1860-1960 for blacks, but I believe they always had their God given rights and some just didn't recognize them. That was the immoral nature of the 'crime' of slavery and racism.

The proposed system is part of a bargain. It is not coercive or unconscionable. If you want to partake in this society's public services you should provide some. It should be a two-way bargain which makes both parties better. People are free to choose to leave. Or at least they should be.

Just my opinion. However, I think it highlights that people can't agree on the procedures if they disagree on the principles.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Ksinc, let me apologize for mispeaking. I'm with you on where the rights come from. I should have said returned rights to people rather than gave them rights.

Wayfarer, I didn't switch to saying gut reaction is the only thing, I just said that it is an important factor. Where the political process is concerned, it's legitimacy is completely in the minds of the people. If you make people think it's illegitimate, it will crumble.

When some people's rights become a singularity in comparison to those of others who have more time for/are better suited for public services, you've effectively taken it away.

I don't think I did double talk about perfection. Sure, you can't get a perfect system, but there's I see no sense in leaving a good enough system for one that I think is worse. I think consistency is important so we shouldn't switch to another system unless a vast majority agree it will be better.

On the slavery, a large portion of Americans recognized the evils of slavery long before 1861. Many still didn't recognize its evils after 1865, but it wasnt like one man one vote where most people think that just feels fair.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I just love people with liberal slants defending the status quo  It warms my heart.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

No, voting should not be compulsory - people have the right to choose not to vote. 

And, there is no fairer proposition than one person, one vote.

blimey! :icon_smile:


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Rossini said:


> No, voting should not be compulsory - people have the right to choose not to vote.
> 
> And, there is no fairer proposition than one person, one vote.
> 
> blimey! :icon_smile:


Fair to who? Define fair. Fair is relative.
With all due respect that is a riduculous blanket statement. It's only fair when we put in equal amounts, then I agree one vote per person.

You have more money than me, give me all you have until we have the same amount of money. 
You can paypal me.

I do not believe I should have the same voice as someone who pays more income tax than I do. Your philosophy only leads to communism. Are you a communist? socialist?

According to your belief, the poor who out number the rich will keep voting for higher taxes until the rich are as poor as the poor. That is scoialism/communism/democracy at it's finest.

Think about it.......one vote one person is so fundamentally flawed. look at America, it's a good example of democracy gone pure and unfair.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Ron, I think you need to keep in mind that your one vote is small compared to the one vote + campaign contributions made by the person who pays more income tax than you do. I wouldn't be too worried about the political representation of the wealthy, they do pretty well outside of the rhetoric.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Capt Ron said:


> I do not believe I should have the same voice as someone who pays more income tax than I do. Your philosophy only leads to communism.


I beleive it is called a Democratic Republic.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

David V said:


> I beleive it is called a Democratic Republic.


+1
:icon_smile_big:


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Not no way, not no how. If someone has the power to make you vote, they have the power to make you vote for....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Wow, ksinc. We actually agree on something. I do think that this idea of a year or two of volunteer service would help with students career choices. For example, what a great way for a young person to decide if a career in medicine is actually for them than to do volunteer work related to healthcare.


Wow, indeed. I've always wondered why Bush hasn't taken his "armies of compassion" idea to it's logical end. We should be sending millions of college age kids around the world volunteering and spreading the "gospel of democracy".


----------

