Obama advocates for mandatory voting

[Tgo01]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/


(CNN)How do we offset the influence of big money in politics while fixing the country's abysmal voter turnout rate?

President Barack Obama suggested maybe it's time to make voting a requirement.

"Other countries have mandatory voting," Obama said Wednesday in Cleveland, where he spoke about the importance of middle class economics.

"It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything."

The clout of millionaires and billionaires in campaign funding has been enormous, and many claim the uber wealthy have undue leverage in politics.

"The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities," Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls."

The President cited Australia as one of the countries that has mandatory voting. But there are many more.

At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison.

Aside from campaign finance issues, the U.S. also grapples with one of the lowest voter turnout rates among developed countries.

Less than 37% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. That means about 144 million Americans -- more than the population of Russia -- skipped out.

But mandatory voting could bring its own set of problems. Haydon Manning, associate professor at Flinders University in Australia, said that country's rules can backfire.

"Turning the vote out might not be a problem, but wooing disengaged citizens now requires banal sloganeering and crass misleading negative advertising," Manning wrote. "To me, this can diminish the democratic experience for those who take the time to think through the issues."

So...voter ID laws are racist and place an undue burden on minorities yet mandatory voting laws are fine? What are the penalties going to be for those who don't vote, fines?

I gotta give Obama credit for one thing; he sure knows how to make every day citizen out to be bad guys.

[Ardwen]

Considering how pathetic turnout is, especially in local elections, if there was a reasonable and cost effective way to this, it isn't a terrible idea.

[Astray]

A bunch of people with no interest in politics and no information being shoved into a booth and being told "pick one"?

I don't see a problem with that.

[Warriorbird]

Obama pushing legislation that will never happen? I've never seen this before.

[Tgo01]

Considering how pathetic turnout is, especially in local elections, if there was a reasonable and cost effective way to this, it isn't a terrible idea.

Yeah but as Astray says you can't force someone to care about the election or who they're voting for, all you can do is force them to choose someone.

Obama doesn't even try to hide what his intentions are either; younger people and minorities tend not to vote so let's force them to vote? Gee, how do those two groups of people tend to vote?


Obama pushing legislation that will never happen? I've never seen this before.

Remember WB, just as I can be in favor of free speech yet still mock stupid people for exercising that right I can also mock politicians for saying stupid shit too, even if their plan will never happen.

[Warriorbird]

Remember WB, just as I can be in favor of free speech yet still mock stupid people for exercising that right I can also mock politicians for saying stupid shit too, even if their plan will never happen.

You are not, however, saying that Obama shouldn't be able to propose this particular bill because of his job or status as, say, a lawyer.

[Astray]

Yeah but as Astray says you can't force someone to care about the election or who they're voting for, all you can do is force them to choose someone.

If you told me that elections were happening tomorrow and it was mandatory to vote, I would have no fucking idea who was running and what their stances were. So I'd say fuck it and walk into a booth and mark the first guy I saw then walk out. Now you do that to a vast majority of the population? Some people will say "gee, I gotta do some research!" but I'm willing to bet that people without much care either way would do what I would do.

[Warriorbird]

If you told me that elections were happening tomorrow and it was mandatory to vote, I would have no fucking idea who was running and what their stances were. So I'd say fuck it and walk into a booth and mark the first guy I saw then walk out. Now you do that to a vast majority of the population? Some people will say "gee, I gotta do some research!" but I'm willing to bet that people without much care either way would do what I would do.

It's nonsense. If they had real arguments/numbers in favor of it they would make them. It'll never happen though.

[JackWhisper]

I'm 30. I can't remember, but I'm fairly sure I've never voted in my life. Even when Obama was first running.

I will vote for TheOtherGuy if Hillary goes up there at any point in time.

I will not vote otherwise, as I do not care about politics enough to think I know enough about them to make a sound judgment of choice. To go into a booth and arbitrarily choose a vote based off whim is quite a bit less than responsible, as citizens of this country. This is sort of dumb for Obama. And that's saying something.

[Wrathbringer]

Considering how pathetic turnout is, especially in local elections, if there was a reasonable and cost effective way to this, it isn't a terrible idea.

Stick to hoarding text. Horrible, unAmerican idea. Why does everyone hate freedom? Your type deserves the concentration camps that you'll vote to institute in the near future.

[Warriorbird]

Stick to hoarding text. Horrible, unAmerican idea. Why does everyone hate freedom? Your type deserves the concentration camps that you'll vote to institute in the near future.

Way to stay Godwinning there tax evader guy.

[Wrathbringer]

Way to stay Godwinning there tax evader guy.

Way to stay retarded there black guy.

[Astray]

Shit just got really uncomfortable.

[Wrathbringer]

Shit just got really uncomfortable.

Why? Because a black person posted? Racist.

[Astray]

Because a black person posted

Exactly.

[Wrathbringer]

Exactly.

You'll have to forgive them. They lack the mental capacity to contribute anything, but also lack the discipline to refrain from posting, as in Ferguson.

[Astray]

I bail.

[Wrathbringer]

I bail.

You can just ignore pc users as you discover their ethnicity, if that helps.

[Warriorbird]

Way to stay retarded there black guy.

Pretending I'm black makes you even more hipster. I didn't know it was possible.

[Wrathbringer]

Pretending I'm black makes you even more hipster. I didn't know it was possible.

Hipsters are racist? Who knew? Actually being black makes you even more irrelevant. I didn't think it was possible.

[Warriorbird]

Hipsters are racist? Who knew? Actually being black makes you even more irrelevant. I didn't think it was possible.

"Showing people what real racism is!" is totally hipster. Not paying taxes makes you very relevant to society and the political process. People should totally accept you as a worthwhile American and value your words because you commit crimes.

[Wrathbringer]

"Showing people what real racism is!" is totally hipster. Not paying taxes makes you very relevant to society and the political process. People should totally accept you as a worthwhile American and value your words because you commit crimes.

Correct. Example: The Boston Tea Party. Next retarded post?

[Warriorbird]

Correct. Example: The Boston Tea Party. Next retarded post?

I had a student who only did two assignments in the entire year. I took him very seriously whenever he said an assignment was "too much."

[Wrathbringer]

I had a student who only did two assignments in the entire year. I took him very seriously whenever he said an assignment was "too much."

I was kidding, stop with the retarded posts now, please.

[Gelston]

I was kidding, stop with the retarded posts now, please.

But when are you going to?

[Wrathbringer]

I had a student who only did two assignments in the entire year. I took him very seriously whenever he said an assignment was "too much."

Can someone black translate this into relevancy?

[Wrathbringer]

But when are you going to?

After I get finished stealing your "valor" grunt.

[Gelston]

After I get finished stealing your "valor" grunt.

Okay, so you'll just keep being a retard. Gotcha.

[Wrathbringer]

Okay, so you'll just keep being a retard. Gotcha.

Are you new here?

[Gelston]

Are you new here?

You are going full retard today though. Usually you don't go full retard.

[Warriorbird]

I was kidding, stop with the retarded posts now, please.

So we're getting back to everything you say is lies/for attention. That's fine. There's this new poster, ZeP, that you have a lot in common with. You should be friends.

[Gelston]

So we're getting back to everything you say is lies/for attention. That's fine. There's this new poster, ZeP, that you have a lot in common with. You should be friends.

I think he is actually jealous of ZeP so he is acting up a little more than usual.

[time4fun]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/



So...voter ID laws are racist and place an undue burden on minorities yet mandatory voting laws are fine? What are the penalties going to be for those who don't vote, fines?

I gotta give Obama credit for one thing; he sure knows how to make every day citizen out to be bad guys.

What a truly bizarre interpretation of motive.

[time4fun]

Yeah but as Astray says you can't force someone to care about the election or who they're voting for, all you can do is force them to choose someone.

Obama doesn't even try to hide what his intentions are either; younger people and minorities tend not to vote so let's force them to vote? Gee, how do those two groups of people tend to vote.

That moment when you realize your political ideology is the minority opinion and decide the real evil is democracy.

I realize this is going to just blow your mind, but in the movie Democracy, the people pushing for widespread political participation among the politically disenfranchised are not the bad guys.

[Kithus]

Supporters of compulsory voting generally look upon voter participation as a civic duty, similar to taxation, jury duty, compulsory education or military service; one of the 'duties to community' mentioned in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[4] They believe that by introducing an obligation to vote, it helps to overcome the occasional inconvenience that voting imposes on an individual in order to produce governments with more stability, legitimacy and a genuine mandate to govern, which in turn benefits that individual even if their preferred candidate or party isn't elected into power.

Compulsory voting systems can confer a high degree of political legitimacy because they result in high voter turnout.[5] The victorious candidate represents a majority of the population, not just the politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion.[6]

Compulsory voting also prevents disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election reduces the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. If everybody must vote, restrictions on voting are easily identified and steps are taken to remove them. Countries with compulsory voting generally hold elections on a Saturday or Sunday to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes, hospitals and remote communities to cater for immobilized citizens.

If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish. In certain jurisdictions, voters have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.

Another perceived benefit of the large turnout produced by compulsory voting is that it becomes more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to get themselves into power or to influence mainstream candidates. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for lobby groups to motivate a small section of the people to the polls and influence the outcome of the political process. The outcome of an election where voting is compulsory reflects more of the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) rather than reflecting who was more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).

Other advantages to compulsory voting are the stimulation of broader interest politics, as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population. Also, since campaign funds are not needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases. High levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or charismatic but sectionally focused demagogues.[6]

There is also a correlation between compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, and improved income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Arguments_for

The bottom line is that we have the lowest level of voter turnout of all developed countries. Improving that statistic will help reduce the influence of money in politics and is a great idea.

[JackWhisper]

Holy crap, I go to bed, this thread is at least somewhat normal for PC.

I wake up, and Wrathbringer has gone Jim Carrey from Burt Wunderstone on everyone.

With about as much effect.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP_40M8uhpU

What a basic idiot.

[Atlanteax]

A bunch of people with no interest in politics and no information being shoved into a booth and being told "pick one"?

I don't see a problem with that.

This.

It would be better if we could restrict voting to having passed a test/quiz on the US Constitution or some similar above-average-intelligence standard.

This would potentially result in less pandering as the voter base would subsequently be predominantly comprised of informed individuals.

[JackWhisper]

This.

It would be better if we could restrict voting to having passed a test/quiz on the US Constitution or some similar above-average-intelligence standard.

This would potentially result in less pandering as the voter base would subsequently be predominantly comprised of informed individuals.

Until you have to pay the people who know dick about the Constitution, and have to be taught and/or given materials to study for the test...

[Atlanteax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Arguments_for

The bottom line is that we have the lowest level of voter turnout of all developed countries. Improving that statistic will help reduce the influence of money in politics and is a great idea.

Considering the intellectual aptitude of the average American, why is this considered a problem? Is there not the possibility that the governance of the U.S. could improve with even lower turnout?

[Parkbandit]

How exactly are they going to force people to vote? Gunpoint? What are the penalties for not voting? Jail time?

This sounds like something they would try in old Soviet Russia.

[time4fun]

This.

It would be better if we could restrict voting to having passed a test/quiz on the US Constitution or some similar above-average-intelligence standard.

This would potentially result in less pandering as the voter base would subsequently be predominantly comprised of informed individuals.

So... The answer to "How do we improve democracy?" is to have fewer people voting, making those people a more homogenous group, and to reduce the extent to which elected officials are beholden to their constituents?

[JackWhisper]

This sounds like something they would try in old Soviet Russia.

Obamacare.

[time4fun]

How exactly are they going to force people to vote? Gunpoint? What are the penalties for not voting? Jail time?

This sounds like something they would try in old Soviet Russia.

Agreed. It's well established that the foundation of Soviet communism was the expansion of democratic political participation.

[waywardgs]

It's not a new idea. I don't think it's the right one, though, if all you want to do is increase turnout. There are some simple things you could do if that was your goal, like holding elections exclusively on the weekends.

[Parkbandit]

It's not a new idea. I don't think it's the right one, though, if all you want to do is increase turnout. There are some simple things you could do if that was your goal, like holding elections exclusively on the weekends.

This exactly. Why not change it from Tuesday to Saturday? That'll increase participation from people who have to work.

[Parkbandit]

So... The answer to "How do we improve democracy?" is to have fewer people voting, making those people a more homogenous group, and to reduce the extent to which elected officials are beholden to their constituents?

Making voting mandatory isn't the answer in a free society.

[Hydra]

It's not a new idea. I don't think it's the right one, though, if all you want to do is increase turnout. There are some simple things you could do if that was your goal, like holding elections exclusively on the weekends.
Like making Election Day a national holiday.

[time4fun]

Making voting mandatory isn't the answer in a free society.

Funny, all this time I thought that massive democratic political participation was exactly how you preserved a free society. You're going to be very hard pressed to find an example of an oppressive society where voting is widespread (and whose results aren't manipulated by said government). That's not an accident.

And I do realize the futility of what I'm about to say, but has it dawned on you to interrogate why you think universal voting is problematic? And why you find a 37% participation rate to be superior to 100%? And finally- why legislation intended to make voting harder is necessary, but legislation to make voting easier is dangerous?

[Ashliana]

I understand the "We don't want uninformed voters participating" mindset, but the hope is that being required to participate will necessarily increase their investment in the process, and it'll help improve things for the better.

The biggest problem with politics--across the political spectrum--is that politicians pull stupid shit and never face consequences for it because their constituents don't pay attention, and only the most radical tend to care enough to vote in primaries.

At the very least, we should have elections be national holidays. There are already several holidays nobody actually "celebrates" we could replace with it, like Columbus Day.

[Parkbandit]

Funny, all this time I thought that massive democratic political participation was exactly how you preserved a free society. You're going to be very hard pressed to find an example of an oppressive society where voting is widespread (and whose results aren't manipulated by said government). That's not an accident.

And I do realize the futility of what I'm about to say, but has it dawned on you to interrogate why you think universal voting is problematic? And why you find a 37% participation rate to be superior to 100%? And finally- why legislation intended to make voting harder is necessary, but legislation to make voting easier is dangerous?

It is my right as a US citizen to participate in the democratic process in this country.

I imagine if it comes to this pipe dream... you will see a boom in the population considering themselves Jehovah's Witnesses.

Good luck getting this passed without breaking the Constitution.

[waywardgs]

I think you meant it's your right to choose whether or not you participate.

[Parkbandit]

I think you meant it's your right to choose whether or not you participate.

Yea, this.

[Taernath]

I could see mandatory participation maybe having some effect if we weren't a two party system (with a third wayyyyy in the back) made up of candidates who are strikingly similar to one another. People just don't care anymore.

[~Rocktar~]

This.

It would be better if we could restrict voting to having passed a test/quiz on the US Constitution or some similar above-average-intelligence standard.

This would potentially result in less pandering as the voter base would subsequently be predominantly comprised of informed individuals.


https://youtu.be/SMTz9nIUkGc

[Wrathbringer]

This.

It would be better if we could restrict voting to having passed a test/quiz on the US Constitution or some similar above-average-intelligence standard.

This would potentially result in less pandering as the voter base would subsequently be predominantly comprised of informed individuals.

We used to have this but then amendments let the rabble in. Been downhill ever since. More idiots voting is not a good thing. Example: the previous 6 years.

[Wrathbringer]

I could see mandatory participation maybe having some effect if we weren't a two party system (with a third wayyyyy in the back) made up of candidates who are strikingly similar to one another. People just don't care anymore.

Yep

[Kithus]

Making voting mandatory isn't the answer in a free society.

"Australia – Introduced in 1924. Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. The act does not explicitly state that a choice must be made, it only states that the ballot paper be 'marked'. According to the act how a person marks the paper is completely up to the individual. In some states, local council elections are also compulsory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Enforced

Are we going to suggest that Australia isn't a free society? They enforce it with a small fine.


This exactly. Why not change it from Tuesday to Saturday? That'll increase participation from people who have to work.

Of course you realize that lower income, service industry workers are more likely to be working weekends than white collar people.

[Wrathbringer]

"Australia – Introduced in 1924. Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. The act does not explicitly state that a choice must be made, it only states that the ballot paper be 'marked'. According to the act how a person marks the paper is completely up to the individual. In some states, local council elections are also compulsory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Enforced

Are we going to suggest that Australia isn't a free society? They enforce it with a small fine.



Of course you realize that lower income, service industry workers are more likely to be working weekends than white collar people.

Would sharting on it count as marking it?

[JackWhisper]

Why not either add 1% to people's yearly income tax return, or withhold 1% of people's tax return, so people vote?

Not saying this is the proper solution, but it is a means to force the vast majority of people to vote. present ID, vote, done. Some will ignore the 1% loss/withholding, but it'd improve the voting percentages by a wide margin.

Thoughts/suggestions?

[Fallen]

Any money spent on this would be better put towards ensuring mandatory expanded times and places at which to vote. Removing impediments to voting would better serve the democratic process rather than forcing the vote on everyone.

[Wrathbringer]

Any money spent on this would be better put towards ensuring mandatory expanded times and places at which to vote.

You realize you're disagreeing with Obummer, right? Reported.

[waywardgs]

I'm all for a mandatoryq election holiday.

[Fallen]

I'm all for a mandatoryq election holiday.

That'd work too. Anyone that has to work on that day Could receive the day prior or afterwards off.

[Gelston]

That'd work too. Anyone that has to work on that day Could receive the day prior or afterwards off.

No. Everyone on that one day. Police, Firemen, Poll Workers, everyone.

[JackWhisper]

No. Everyone. Poll Workers, everyone.

Tottianna refuses to vote. REFUSES!

[Fallen]

No. Everyone on that one day. Police, Firemen, Poll Workers, everyone.

http://data1.whicdn.com/images/65014173/large.gif

[Tgo01]

What a truly bizarre interpretation of motive.

HAHA. No.


That moment when you realize your political ideology is the minority opinion and decide the real evil is democracy.

You're talking about Obama, right?


I realize this is going to just blow your mind, but in the movie Democracy, the people pushing for widespread political participation among the politically disenfranchised are not the bad guys.

I've never seen the movie "Democracy" so I don't know how they went about this but it sounds like you're equating "pushing for widespread political participation among the politically disenfranchised" to literally forcing people to vote?

You do realize those two aren't the same thing, right? Unless that's exactly how they did it in the movie, then yes, they were the bad guys.

[Tgo01]

I understand the "We don't want uninformed voters participating" mindset, but the hope is that being required to participate will necessarily increase their investment in the process, and it'll help improve things for the better.

It's like forcing people to go to the DMV. I always hear people say "Oh boy! I get to go to the DMV tomorrow because the government makes me!"

[kutter]

Why do we need to expand polling times and/or places? Early voting last like a month. If you cannot find your way to a polling place with a month long window, then clearly you cannot get it done in one day. And as a caveat, people voted in far larger percentages when we never had expanded polling days. it is not because people cannot vote, they just do not give a shit! Find a way to fix that and everything else will fix itself.

[Fallen]

Why do we need to expand polling times and/or places? Early voting last like a month. If you cannot find your way to a polling place with a month long window, then clearly you cannot get it done in one day. And as a caveat, people voted in far larger percentages when we never had expanded polling days. it is not because people cannot vote, they just do not give a shit! Find a way to fix that and everything else will fix itself.

By that same token, why would anyone want to restrict polling times/places?

[kutter]

By that same token, why would anyone want to restrict polling times/places?

Put simply, it cost money. What we have currently is more than sufficient for people to exercise their civic rights. We do not need to expand anything.

People simply are not engaged, mandating it will not change that. You have to motivate people to want to be in the process, not compel them to do so.

[Parkbandit]

By that same token, why would anyone want to restrict polling times/places?

Do you believe the process should be expanded to 2 or 3 months then?

Like Kutter said, early voting is like a month long in some states.. If you don't vote because you don't have the time, you aren't disenfranchised.. You either are too lazy or you don't give a shit.

[Tgo01]

you aren't disenfranchised.. You either are too lazy or you don't give a shit.

Yeah but forcing them to vote with threat of a fine makes them not disenfranchised.

/time4fun

[Gelston]

Yeah but forcing them to vote with threat of a fine makes them not disenfranchised.

/time4fun

You're that person too?

[Tgo01]

You're that person too?

Just like in GS, I have multiple accounts and I'm everyone.

[Fallen]

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx

Apparently only 2/3rds of the states offer early voting. Am I to assume there are those here who would oppose that being offered to all 50 states?

[Androidpk]

Just make election day a federal holiday.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx

Apparently only 2/3rds of the states offer early voting. Am I to assume there are those here who would oppose that being offered to all 50 states?

Who are you assuming would?

[Latrinsorm]

So...voter ID laws are racist and place an undue burden on minorities yet mandatory voting laws are fine? What are the penalties going to be for those who don't vote, fines? I gotta give Obama credit for one thing; he sure knows how to make every day citizen out to be bad guys.You misunderstand the argument against voter ID laws. Although I assume this is intentional, I will state it for anyone who is honestly confused. The 15th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that "The right ... to vote shall not be denied or abridged ... on account of race". Those voter ID laws that require a paid ID card place a disproportionate burden on those with low income, who are disproportionately of minority race, thus those specific voter ID laws are unconstitutional. It's black letter law.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention a right to NOT vote, so said right obviously cannot be explicitly protected on account of race. Thus, if a law is passed that levies fines based on not voting, it would not be unconstitutional under the same argument made against those specific voter ID laws.
It is my right as a US citizen to participate in the democratic process in this country. I imagine if it comes to this pipe dream... you will see a boom in the population considering themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. Good luck getting this passed without breaking the Constitution.Mandatory voting would pass the Lemon test, even if it didn't allow for blank or otherwise neutral ballots.
I'm all for a mandatoryq election holiday.Employers are already required by state laws to give their employees time to vote. In a lot of states, they're required to give those employees paid time off to do so.

[Tgo01]

Latrin is here to Latrin up the thread.

[Fallen]

Who are you assuming would?

Those that would argue against it from a cost savings standpoint, I suppose.

[Parkbandit]

Those that would argue against it from a cost savings standpoint, I suppose.

Meh.. it's up to the states. My state already has it.

[waywardgs]

Employers are already required by state laws to give their employees time to vote. In a lot of states, they're required to give those employees paid time off to do so.

In practice this often doesn't mean shit.

[Latrinsorm]

In practice this often doesn't mean shit.Universal surveillance.

[ClydeR]

Reversible rights. That's what this thread is about.

If the Constitution gives you the right to do something, does that mean you also have the right to do the reverse?

You have the right to bear arms. But do you have the right not to bear arms? Could your state legislature pass a law saying that every adult citizen is required to carry a handgun when in public to reduce the crime rate?


You have the right to privacy in your home. Do you have the right to build a completely transparent home where you're constantly on display?


If accused of a crime, you have the right to a public trial. Can you reverse that and require that your trial be private?
You can go through the Constitutional amendments and think about whether or not a citizen should have the right to reverse each Constitutional right. Should the rule be the same for all rights -- either you have the right to reverse all rights, or you have the right to reverse none? Or should judges have the power to decide for each right whether or not it is reversible?

[Warriorbird]

Universal surveillance.

In practice this doesn't mean shit.

[Tgo01]

You have the right to bear arms. But do you have the right not to bear arms? Could your state legislature pass a law saying that every adult citizen is required to carry a handgun when in public to reduce the crime rate?


You have the right to privacy in your home. Do you have the right to build a completely transparent home where you're constantly on display?


If accused of a crime, you have the right to a public trial. Can you reverse that and require that your trial be private?

You were actually making a lot of sense with your first point but your other 2 points don't make sense because they're not about the government forcing you to do something.

But yeah, right on with your first point. It almost sounds like you're disagreeing with Obama. Who hacked ClydeR's account?!

[Thondalar]

Considering how pathetic turnout is, especially in local elections, if there was a reasonable and cost effective way to this, it isn't a terrible idea.

Uh, yeah, actually, this is a terrible idea. Government-mandated anything is a terrible idea.

[Thondalar]

Reversible rights. That's what this thread is about.

If the Constitution gives you the right to do something, does that mean you also have the right to do the reverse?

You have the right to bear arms. But do you have the right not to bear arms? Could your state legislature pass a law saying that every adult citizen is required to carry a handgun when in public to reduce the crime rate?


You have the right to privacy in your home. Do you have the right to build a completely transparent home where you're constantly on display?


If accused of a crime, you have the right to a public trial. Can you reverse that and require that your trial be private?
You can go through the Constitutional amendments and think about whether or not a citizen should have the right to reverse each Constitutional right. Should the rule be the same for all rights -- either you have the right to reverse all rights, or you have the right to reverse none? Or should judges have the power to decide for each right whether or not it is reversible?

I think you're not really understanding what rights are. Sadly, you're not alone.

[waywardgs]

In practice this doesn't mean shit.

heh, was gonna post the exact same thing.

[Thondalar]

In practice this often doesn't mean shit.

Its meant shit in every job I've ever had.

[waywardgs]

Its meant shit in every job I've ever had.

You're in the service industry, right? If you were waiting tables, would your boss reimburse you your lost tips for the shift you missed? Or would they MAYBE have tossed you the 2.40 they pay their employees per hour in restaurants?

[Thondalar]

You're in the service industry, right? If you were waiting tables, would your boss reimburse you your lost tips for the shift you missed? Or would they MAYBE have tossed you the 2.40 they pay their employees per hour in restaurants?

While I dallied a bit in serving, mostly bartending, I've always been more of a back-of-house sort...when I was hourly I preferred being a cook, I've been salaried for a while now but even there I prefer being in the kitchen...

If you really want an insider's opinion of the food service industry, our schedules, in general, are pretty fluid. Its the give-and-take of the industry. Whereas most jobs have a set schedule, say 8-5 Mon-Fri...restaurant biz has no such. For one thing, like the recent shit McDonald's is going through, we don't get "breaks" in my industry. I'm not surprised the "outrage" about this is starting out in the fast-food side, because everyone on my end of the industry just accepts the fact that you're going to be on your feet with no "breaks" for 8-12 hours on average. Let us be completely reasonable; logical about this...there are only two options here. Either you get "sorry, but the cook is on break, he'll be back in 30 minutes" when you go through the drive-through or sit down to eat, or you pay an extra 2-3$ for every meal you get regardless of where or what that restaurant is in order to have enough people "on the clock" to deliver your order in a timely fashion. History has proven that most people want to be oblivious to the former and not have the latter.

When I present this to most people who pose this question, they ask "well, why not have people on to cover the guy going on break?"

I always laugh a bit inside, because they obviously have no clue.

Here's the problem.

In the restaurant biz, like in most biz, you have controllables. At the end of the quarter, when you tally it all up, labor is a huge part of your controllables....in most cases, as a manager, its what a fair portion of your quarterly bonus is based off of. You could say "ok, well, that's just managers being greedy and protecting their bonus", except for the fact that we get lambasted to no end if we don't meet that objective. Its pass or fail in the truest sense. Because of the ebb and flow of our industry...aka we get busy around lunch for 2 hours, then dead for 3 hours, then busy for dinner for 4 hours, then dead to close...the only way to make everything fit would be to have a bunch of part-time workers willing to come in for 2 or 3 hours a day. AND be highly-skilled.

It simply isn't going to work.

Its one of those times where I think most people just don't understand the forces they're messing with. While on one hand, I would love....LOVE.....for every worker to have a fair shake...there are some industries where its simply not possible. This is one of those.

The only alternative is, everyone pay eh...$1 more per fast-food item, $3 more per casual dining item...while a large segment of the population would probably get behind that, competition in the industry is sort of a who-blinks-first scenario. There would be enough people going to the cheaper option regardless of workplace environment...which is why nothing changes.

And, as I alluded to earlier....trust me when I say you don't want it to change. Mark my words...if the people suing McDonald's for labor violations win, it will set off a land-slide of lawsuits for every chain in America...not only fast food but also casual dining. End result? Higher prices across the board, and longer waits. Its simple math.

[Thondalar]

You're in the service industry, right? If you were waiting tables, would your boss reimburse you your lost tips for the shift you missed? Or would they MAYBE have tossed you the 2.40 they pay their employees per hour in restaurants?

I just now realized I meant to answer your question and got off on an incredible drunken tangent...

As I started to say, before I got off on all that...schedules in the restaurant biz are pretty fluid. Tuesdays are usually pretty slow. If you put in a request even the week before, its not a problem to work things out.

In most places I've worked at, we open for lunch at 11am. You have tons of time to hit the poll before you report to work....only the people in the kitchen come in before that, and they're all off by 4:30pm at the latest....still plenty of time to hit the polls on the way home.

I liken it to the hubbub about minimum wage...all the people jacked up about it, have they ever bothered to look at the statistics on how many Americans their "crusade" will actually affect?

Its a "feel good" topic with a very minimal actual outcome.

[waywardgs]

wat

[Thondalar]

wat

wat wat?

[Tgo01]

wat

Restaurant biz is hard.

[Thondalar]

Restaurant biz is hard.

On your feet 8-15 hours straight, no breaks, out front dealing with people, in the back dealing with servers dealing with people...

Real talk. I've worked construction, I've driven a truck, I was an administrator for a prison, I was an order-selector in two different warehouses...just off the top of my head. I tried several times to get out of the biz...but once its in your blood, you're done. I hate it and love it with equal vehemence.

[waywardgs]

From now on, any time anyone asks me a question, I'm going to respond with this:

While I dallied a bit in serving, mostly bartending, I've always been more of a back-of-house sort...when I was hourly I preferred being a cook, I've been salaried for a while now but even there I prefer being in the kitchen...

If you really want an insider's opinion of the food service industry, our schedules, in general, are pretty fluid. Its the give-and-take of the industry. Whereas most jobs have a set schedule, say 8-5 Mon-Fri...restaurant biz has no such. For one thing, like the recent shit McDonald's is going through, we don't get "breaks" in my industry. I'm not surprised the "outrage" about this is starting out in the fast-food side, because everyone on my end of the industry just accepts the fact that you're going to be on your feet with no "breaks" for 8-12 hours on average. Let us be completely reasonable; logical about this...there are only two options here. Either you get "sorry, but the cook is on break, he'll be back in 30 minutes" when you go through the drive-through or sit down to eat, or you pay an extra 2-3$ for every meal you get regardless of where or what that restaurant is in order to have enough people "on the clock" to deliver your order in a timely fashion. History has proven that most people want to be oblivious to the former and not have the latter.

When I present this to most people who pose this question, they ask "well, why not have people on to cover the guy going on break?"

I always laugh a bit inside, because they obviously have no clue.

Here's the problem.

In the restaurant biz, like in most biz, you have controllables. At the end of the quarter, when you tally it all up, labor is a huge part of your controllables....in most cases, as a manager, its what a fair portion of your quarterly bonus is based off of. You could say "ok, well, that's just managers being greedy and protecting their bonus", except for the fact that we get lambasted to no end if we don't meet that objective. Its pass or fail in the truest sense. Because of the ebb and flow of our industry...aka we get busy around lunch for 2 hours, then dead for 3 hours, then busy for dinner for 4 hours, then dead to close...the only way to make everything fit would be to have a bunch of part-time workers willing to come in for 2 or 3 hours a day. AND be highly-skilled.

It simply isn't going to work.

Its one of those times where I think most people just don't understand the forces they're messing with. While on one hand, I would love....LOVE.....for every worker to have a fair shake...there are some industries where its simply not possible. This is one of those.

The only alternative is, everyone pay eh...$1 more per fast-food item, $3 more per casual dining item...while a large segment of the population would probably get behind that, competition in the industry is sort of a who-blinks-first scenario. There would be enough people going to the cheaper option regardless of workplace environment...which is why nothing changes.

And, as I alluded to earlier....trust me when I say you don't want it to change. Mark my words...if the people suing McDonald's for labor violations win, it will set off a land-slide of lawsuits for every chain in America...not only fast food but also casual dining. End result? Higher prices across the board, and longer waits. Its simple math.

[Kithus]

How is your Friday going Way?

[Latrinsorm]

In practice this doesn't mean shit.Universal surveillance has never been implemented, so there is no "in practice" of which to tabulate the meanings.
Uh, yeah, actually, this is a terrible idea. Government-mandated anything is a terrible idea.What's the difference between a law and a government mandate?

[Warriorbird]

Universal surveillance has never been implemented, so there is no "in practice" of which to tabulate the meanings.

It's what's done with the surveillance that makes it matter. There doesn't have to be an "implementation." It's just philosophical conceit though, like usual, from you.

[Latrinsorm]

There doesn't have to be an implementation to say how it works in practice? :D

[Warriorbird]

There doesn't have to be an implementation to say how it works in practice? :D

There doesn't. We can see just how badly surveillance is handled. You don't need unlimited of a thing to see people respond to it poorly.

[Parkbandit]

Toward the end of a speech and Q&A session (about an hour and 10 minutes in) in Cleveland yesterday, President Barack Obama spoke a bit about reforming elections, complaining about money in politics, gerrymandering, and the Citizens United decision. One "short term" solution he floated was to make voting mandatory, holding up Australia as an example.


"It would be transformative if everybody voted," he said. "That would counter money more than anything."


No, it wouldn't, not really. Well, first of all, let's backtrack to the idea. Mandatory voting is a violation of our civil rights, just as denying a citizen a right to vote is a violation. Casting a vote is speech. It is showing support or opposition to a candidate or proposal. Making voting mandatory means voting is no longer a right. It's an obligation. It's forced speech. If we were forced to attend a church, but had a choice of several churches, we would still (most of us, anyway) recognize that this is a violation of our freedom to decline to practice religion at all. Not voting isn't just an expression of apathy. It's also a form of protest.


Second, when it comes to campaigning, mandatory voting would indeed probably make the race cheaper—but only for incumbents and entrenched politicians. Institutional inertia benefits incumbents tremendously, and they're rarely tossed out of office. Obama complained about all the television ads during election season. Imagine what it would be like to attempt to challenge an incumbent as an outsider in an environment where you have to assume that everybody is going to vote. How much more money would challengers have to spend to try to reach even more people to counter the natural advantages of incumbents? It's the same problem with attempting to restrict campaign spending. Because incumbents have a history and years of essentially free press covering his or her work in office, challengers sometimes have to be able to raise and spend more to compete against them, assuming the incumbent doesn't have a history of failure, scandal, and incompetence. There's a reason the phrase "the devil you know" gets invoked so frequently when talking about politicians and elections.


Third, Australia's parliamentary system is completely different from America's. They have a proportional voting system, not a "winner takes all" system. Their voting process is very complicated, with voters ranking candidates by preference. Australia has more than two political parties with representation in its parliament, and the voting system sometimes results in the creation of ruling coalitions (right now it's a group of center-right political parties). Comparing America's voting system to Australia's is as silly as comparing it to North Korea's, but for different reasons.


Australia's complicated voting system helped lead to the election of Australia's first libertarian senator, David Leyonhjelm. Despite nominally benefiting from mandatory voting and a prime spot near the top of the ballot, Leyonhjelm blasted mandatory voting in an interview with Reason: "We argue that we have a right to vote, and it's not a right if you get fined for not doing it. So it becomes an obligation, like paying your taxes. You don't have a right to pay your taxes; you have an obligation to pay your taxes, and you get penalized if you don't do it. Voting is in the same category: To pretend it's a right when you can be prosecuted for not doing it is ridiculous."




Here in America, the Democrats and Republicans do everything in their power to keep candidates like Leyonhjelm off the ballots, which would make mandatory voting the equivalent of finding your local convenience store coolers stocked with nothing but Coke and Pepsi. In California, the state has instituted a top-two-only run-off open primary system for many races, and in November's election, in six Congressional races, voters in those districts only had the choice between two candidates from the same party. Would you like Coke or Diet Coke?


Obama would have us believe that mandatory voting somehow gives more power to the citizenry, but in fact, it treats the citizenry as the servants of the political parties. Recall last fall when operatives for political parties sent out sinister messages to voters warning them that whether they voted or not was a public record and that they would be "interested to hear" why somebody might not have voted. As I said at the time, these methods absolve the political parties of having to find better candidates that would actually inspire people to go to the polls. Imagine what sort of insipid, lackluster candidates we'll get in mandatory elections and what they'll say or do or promise to try to get the support of people who currently do not feel enough interest to even bother.


To bounce back to Australia for a moment, today Leyonhjelm is reintroducing his bill to try to legalize gay marriage recognition down under. Part of the process of getting this legislation passed in Australia is convincing one of the coalition parties to allow its legislators to have a conscience vote, meaning these men and women will decide how to vote rather than the party. Even though polls show Australians are in favor of gay marriage recognition in higher numbers than here in the United States, Leyonhjelm has to lobby for members of one party to vote how they want to vote, not how the party tells them they have to vote.


And finally, for obvious reasons, Obama fails to engage in why special interests spend so much money on elections in the first place: The federal government is very, very powerful, and it has grown in size and scope under him. The federal government has its hooks in every single thing we do as citizens and in every single thing every business does as well. Election turnouts aren't going to change this. It might even heighten it if candidates end up promising all sorts of new programs to appeal to voters who would have otherwise not even bothered under the current system. The Obama administration and its agencies' willingness to regulate just about anything under the sun fosters an environment where not only does it pay off for labor and corporate interests to spend money to influence incomes, sometimes it's—well—mandatory.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/19/mandatory-voting-is-a-terribleand-insult

[Latrinsorm]

Mandatory voting is a violation of our civil rights, just as denying a citizen a right to vote is a violation. Casting a vote is speech. It is showing support or opposition to a candidate or proposal. Making voting mandatory means voting is no longer a right. It's an obligation. It's forced speech. If we were forced to attend a church, but had a choice of several churches, we would still (most of us, anyway) recognize that this is a violation of our freedom to decline to practice religion at all. Not voting isn't just an expression of apathy. It's also a form of protest.Forced speech is already Constitutional in certain circumstances, the most obvious one being testimony in a court of law. There are circumstances within that circumstance where such force is not Constitutional, thus it stands to reason that there could be privileges for non-voting.

[Wrathbringer]

Forced speech is already Constitutional in certain circumstances, the most obvious one being testimony in a court of law. There are circumstances within that circumstance where such force is not Constitutional, thus it stands to reason that there could be privileges for non-voting.

Washington is realizing that America is disenchanted with their rigged system that does what it wants no matter what face is where. Their only recourse, and I do mean only, is to force participation. It is in their best interest- not ours- to require participation. That said, if I were forced to vote-which I won't be, because this is America-I'd write in Sharter McGee or Joe Fascist for every position. Of course, they'll have to do away with write in candidates in order to curb this form of protest, another liberty taken. Wake up people.

[Thondalar]

Washington is realizing that America is disenchanted with their rigged system that does what it wants no matter what face is where. Their only recourse, and I do mean only, is to force participation. It is in their best interest- not ours- to require participation. That said, if I were forced to vote-which I won't be, because this is America-I'd write in Sharter McGee or Joe Fascist for every position. Of course, they'll have to do away with write in candidates in order to curb this form of protest, another liberty taken. Wake up people.

Don't worry, cousin...we had ultra-right in the 20's....we had ultra-left in the 70's...the 2020's will be the time of reason.

As much as I would like to take this moment to go off on another tangent about grey areas and why they are bad, I won't.

I'm actually sort of done with it. I've read the tea leaves and the stones and the bones AND EVEN watched the flight patterns of birds.

All the portents are portentous.




edit: typo.

[Warriorbird]

The last two effective strongly liberal/conservative Presidents we had were Johnson and Reagan. We'll likely continue to have limp middle of the road nonsense for years.

[Thondalar]

There doesn't have to be an implementation to say how it works in practice? :D

In this case, no. We can't even trust something as transparent as national government to not fuck us in the ass...see also (aka google) Armenian Genocide, starving Ukrainians, holocaust, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, "great leap forward", Khmer Rouge...

Ugh. As smart as you seem to be, Latrine Storm, this particular stance of yours still shocks me. You act as if power has never once been abused by any who have held it, even though history...even very recent history, history that has happened within your own lifetime, proves otherwise.

The key point here...a truth the Framers came to after much deliberation and discussion...the only way to prevent large-scale atrocities is to allow people to be free. Individuals cause occasional small problems....national governments cause very large problems. A whack-job shoots 20 kids in a school in the US and everyone flips their fucking lids...20 kids get killed in Afghanistan just for being girls trying to go to school and nobody bats an eyelash.

If you think that's not what this is all about, you're missing the boat. We have volumes of literature, written in their own hands, to look back at and interpret...while interpretations may vary on the exact details, the overall picture should be clear to us all.

What is the big picture? Mankind...not even talking about women, or men, or black, or white, or Asian, or Hispanic, or whatever other stupid pointless category you want to put us in...every single one of us is homo sapiens. Besides having a birthday and being of the same species, another very important thing we all have in common is we're on this particular rock together.

The Earth, our Earth, our home...its huge. Compared to us, to our perception, its huge. Its gigantic...in physical area, Russia is the largest nation, followed by Canada and then the US (the US has more "livable" area than the first two, but still)...the point is, you would be hard-pressed to see every corner of just this piece of Earth you live on, over the course of your lifetime. The majority of us will see other places occasionally...we might visit Paris, or London, or even St. Kitts...but I think the vastness of our own planet is out of the realm of your average perception.

Now, lets look at the fact that we are but one (relatively) small rock floating in a giant expanse of vacuum. To us standing here on Earth, even our own home nation is a massive area. The globe we're on dwarfs that....and the galaxy our globe is part of dwarfs it even more. By like a million. Now, consider that galaxy we're a speck in is only itself a speck in a billion galaxies.

What is the purpose? What is the end-game, so to speak...because we all love a good ending. Naturally, many lean towards religion to explain most things that are simply beyond our primate intelligence. What affect does that have on our daily lives here on our speck?

The only thing I can come up with is freedom. Its simple, really...none of us knows for sure what happens after we die. We have what we've been taught, and what we've thought about, and what we think, and what we "know". Faith aside, what we really know is that at one point we were born, and at one point we'll die. What happened before we were born we don't actually know, and what happens after we die we won't know until that happens.

What we do know is what happens now, in our lives, while we live it, in our little pointless existence on this little pointless rock in the middle of pointless space.

If that's the case, why not be free? Why not...all of us, regardless or race or nationality or creed or sex...why not be free?

[Thondalar]

The last two effective strongly liberal/conservative Presidents we had were Johnson and Reagan. We'll likely continue to have limp middle of the road nonsense for years.

Johnson and Reagan were both moderates.

Republicans have endless points to offer to prove the former, and Democrats have endless points to offer to prove the latter.

[Thondalar]

The last two effective strongly liberal/conservative Presidents we had were Johnson and Reagan. We'll likely continue to have limp middle of the road nonsense for years.

Besides the fact that president doesn't really mean shit. I figured one of you would say some shit like this when I said "conservative 20's, liberal 70's"....fuck the Pres. Look at what was going on during those times. Prohibition is super conservative, for example.

[Warriorbird]

Johnson and Reagan were both moderates.

Republicans have endless points to offer to prove the former, and Democrats have endless points to offer to prove the latter.

I'm definitely curious as to how you want to prove that the Great Society and the Reagan Revolution were moderate.

[Thondalar]

I'm definitely curious as to how you want to prove that the Great Society and the Reagan Revolution were moderate.

I don't have to, others already have. Do some research.

[Thondalar]

Also, fuck that. Its pointless random bullshit that is pointless and random. Keep your eye on the prize.

[Thondalar]

I do my best. The truth is we had two mediocre Presidents in a row and Congress mostly serves themselves.

You don't say.

[Thondalar]

I do my best. The truth is we had two mediocre Presidents in a row and Congress mostly serves themselves.

Our system has come to serve itself. What we have now, current day, is a bastardization of what we were meant to have...the system that thousands of years of experience and a thousand intelligent brains concocted...

Eh...they tried their best. They laid things out in the clearest words they could come up with. They wrote it all down in what they thought would be a manner in which no interpretation would be necessary.

Time is a motherfucker.

[Warriorbird]

Our system has come to serve itself. What we have now, current day, is a bastardization of what we were meant to have...the system that thousands of years of experience and a thousand intelligent brains concocted...

Eh...they tried their best. They laid things out in the clearest words they could come up with. They wrote it all down in what they thought would be a manner in which no interpretation would be necessary.

Time is a motherfucker.

I still believe we have a great system (a lot of that due to peaceful succession) but America's had issues the entire way through.

[waywardgs]

I still believe we have a great system (a lot of that due to peaceful succession) but America's had issues the entire way through.

Historically speaking, America is still the new kid on the block... and we run this bitch. That says something...

[Gelston]

Historically speaking, America is still the new kid on the block... and we run this bitch. That says something...

Historically speaking, we are the oldest democracy.

[waywardgs]

Historically speaking, we are the oldest democracy.

Kinda my point. Something must be working right, no matter how upset we get at the particulars.

[Gelston]

Kinda my point. Something must be working right, no matter how upset we get at the particulars.

An interesting study I had once, most national governments have collapsed after around 300 years. The country goes on usually but it is a major change. Are we headed at that? Well, we will see.

[waywardgs]

An interesting study I had once, most national governments have collapsed after around 300 years. The country goes on usually but it is a major change. Are we headed at that? Well, we will see.

That makes sense, if you're averaging all nations throughout history. But when does it start? The concept of the nation-state isn't terribly old.

[Thondalar]

I still believe we have a great system (a lot of that due to peaceful succession) but America's had issues the entire way through.

Only by fighting tooth and nail do we still have some reasonable semblance of our "great system"...myopia is a beast. Complacency breeds inadequacy. WW2 destroyed most of Europe...but America was, relatively, untouched...sure, we had rationing, and times were tough...but we didn't have to rebuild anything other than portions of our Navy, which we would have done anyway.

OF COURSE AMERICA HAS HAD ISSUES.

We're all people. Ignore history if you want, but at the time of America's founding, our Constitution as finally ratified was the first of its kind in the world. You can go back to Greece and Rome and find similarities...parallels are often drawn between the Magna Carta and the Constitution...some smaller civilizations in various parts of the world have had similar governments at various points...but the totality of it, and the clarity of its speech, and the magnitude of its scope...nothing quite like that had ever been done before. Writing and ratifying that document didn't instantly change the entire world...hell, the Bible didn't even do that. But, like the Bible, or the Torah, or the Quran...it laid out a plan. It showed a path to a desired goal...except, not in the afterlife, but in the present life. It drew from history, from centuries of overbearing governments enslaving their own people, and finally, at least they thought, gave the power to the people.

Now, after centuries of relative ease...I think most of us have lost sight of why that amazing document came to be in the first place. Hell, none of us were alive 250 years ago...nobody we even know was alive 250 years ago. The oldest person I know personally is only 94 years old. That's pretty close, but no cigar. "Fat, lazy Americans" takes on a whole new meaning...that is exactly what we've become. Not only physically, but especially mentally. "Activists" these days have no idea what they're even "activating" for or against. They're doing it just to do it. It would be a comedy of errors if it wasn't so fucking sad.

[Thondalar]

Historically speaking, we are the oldest democracy.

What? We've never been a Democracy.

[Warriorbird]

Only by fighting tooth and nail do we still have some reasonable semblance of our "great system"...myopia is a beast. Complacency breeds inadequacy. WW2 destroyed most of Europe...but America was, relatively, untouched...sure, we had rationing, and times were tough...but we didn't have to rebuild anything other than portions of our Navy, which we would have done anyway.

OF COURSE AMERICA HAS HAD ISSUES.

We're all people. Ignore history if you want, but at the time of America's founding, our Constitution as finally ratified was the first of its kind in the world. You can go back to Greece and Rome and find similarities...parallels are often drawn between the Magna Carta and the Constitution...some smaller civilizations in various parts of the world have had similar governments at various points...but the totality of it, and the clarity of its speech, and the magnitude of its scope...nothing quite like that had ever been done before. Writing and ratifying that document didn't instantly change the entire world...hell, the Bible didn't even do that. But, like the Bible, or the Torah, or the Quran...it laid out a plan. It showed a path to a desired goal...except, not in the afterlife, but in the present life. It drew from history, from centuries of overbearing governments enslaving their own people, and finally, at least they thought, gave the power to the people.

Now, after centuries of relative ease...I think most of us have lost sight of why that amazing document came to be in the first place. Hell, none of us were alive 250 years ago...nobody we even know was alive 250 years ago. The oldest person I know personally is only 94 years old. That's pretty close, but no cigar. "Fat, lazy Americans" takes on a whole new meaning...that is exactly what we've become. Not only physically, but especially mentally. "Activists" these days have no idea what they're even "activating" for or against. They're doing it just to do it. It would be a comedy of errors if it wasn't so fucking sad.

On the opposing royalty/The Enlightenment level? You certainly have a point. On another? The Constitution was a triumph of elites that was only broken up by Andrew Jackson (RE: the right to vote for poor whites) and Abraham Lincoln (The Civil War ending slavery). Amusingly they're basically the two founders of our modern parties.

[Parkbandit]

Besides the fact that president doesn't really mean shit. I figured one of you would say some shit like this when I said "conservative 20's, liberal 70's"....fuck the Pres. Look at what was going on during those times. Prohibition is super conservative, for example.

wut?

Prohibition was given to you by the Progressive Party... the ones that believe they know what's best for you.

[Wrathbringer]

wut?

Prohibition was given to you by the Progressive Party... the ones that believe they know what's best for you.

To be clear, they both think they know what's best for you. Of course, Democraps rationalize this via "the greater good" and Republicans via Christain morality. Wasn't religious zeal a factor in prohibition, and probably on both sides of the aisle at that time?

[Parkbandit]

To be clear, they both think they know what's best for you. Of course, Democraps rationalize this via "the greater good" and Republicans via Christain morality. Wasn't religious zeal a factor in prohibition, and probably on both sides of the aisle at that time?

Yea.. and I wish that the Republicans could shed their religious right nutjobs... which probably makes me lean harder towards the Libertarians.

[waywardgs]

Yea.. and I wish that the Republicans could shed their religious right nutjobs... which probably makes me lean harder towards the Libertarians.

I'd love to see a fiscally responsible republican who has ditched the morality bullshit and gave a rip about the environment. I'd vote for that guy in a second.

[Wrathbringer]

I'd love to see a fiscally responsible republican who has ditched the morality bullshit and gave a rip about the environment. I'd vote for that guy in a second.

You might, but the Republican base wouldn't. They want more Bush's, McCain's and Romneys. Anyone with a new slant on conservatism isn't welcome.

[Parkbandit]

You might, but the Republican base wouldn't. They want more Bush's, McCain's and Romneys. Anyone with a new slant on conservatism isn't welcome.

A new slant?

Just give me a real Conservative. Just one. Not someone who claims "I'm the foot soldier of Ronald Reagan!" bullshit, a real fucking conservative.

[Parkbandit]

I'd love to see a fiscally responsible republican who has ditched the morality bullshit and gave a rip about the environment. I'd vote for that guy in a second.

Look at the difference between George W Bush and Al Gore. One actually cared about the environment.. and the other one made millions claiming to care about the environment.

[Wrathbringer]

A new slant?

Just give me a real Conservative. Just one. Not someone who claims "I'm the foot soldier of Ronald Reagan!" bullshit, a real fucking conservative.

Agreed, but I'm just not optimistic on that front anymore. I'd like to get a big mac at burger king, but that's not where they are. Even the real conservatives masquerading as Republicans are ostracized by their own base; Ron Paul, Tea Party, Rand Paul, etc...

[Tgo01]

https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/10408821_10155533800720019_4449464698598662639_n.p ng?oh=99b62910392f7c1776c6dec907b18552&oe=55B0512A

Owned.

[Latrinsorm]

Ugh. As smart as you seem to be, Latrine Storm, this particular stance of yours still shocks me. You act as if power has never once been abused by any who have held it, even though history...even very recent history, history that has happened within your own lifetime, proves otherwise.So to review, we don't need something to actually happen to say how it works in practice, if I explicitly say something happens I am acting like it never has, and (as always) I'm the bad guy. Sheesh!
the galaxy our globe is part of dwarfs it even more. By like a million.And you wonder why I say you're not good at quantitative stuff. :D
If that's the case, why not be free? Why not...all of us, regardless or race or nationality or creed or sex...why not be free?This is great rhetoric. As the Founders understood, however, your system of government can't be to just scream "FREEEEEEDOOOOOMMMMMM!!!" These romances are enjoyable, of course, but in the real world we understand that there is a balance between freedom and security, and that in fact some freedoms can only be obtained by curtailing others. This is the system everyone agrees to, because it's the only system. The only question people have is where specifically on the continuum we should place the slider, what particular shade of gray is the best. As always, history is far more boring than you give it credit for. The Constitution did not represent some grand divide with the past, some shining punctuation of the undifferentiated equilibrium, some perfect eternal ideal. Your favorite amendment (#10) is taken almost word for word from the Articles of Confederation, for example, and it so happens that that almost alone is enough to demonstrate that your understanding of the Founders' intent is fundamentally flawed.

[Parkbandit]

https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/10408821_10155533800720019_4449464698598662639_n.p ng?oh=99b62910392f7c1776c6dec907b18552&oe=55B0512A

Owned.

That is fucking awesome.

[Thondalar]

On the opposing royalty/The Enlightenment level? You certainly have a point. On another? The Constitution was a triumph of elites that was only broken up by Andrew Jackson (RE: the right to vote for poor whites) and Abraham Lincoln (The Civil War ending slavery). Amusingly they're basically the two founders of our modern parties.

Had it been taken completely literally, as written, neither of those would have been necessary.

[Thondalar]

wut?

Prohibition was given to you by the Progressive Party... the ones that believe they know what's best for you.

Wow...you really believe that? While it was passed during a progressive administration, it was fundamental Christian Conservatives that did all the grassroots lobbying.

[Thondalar]

Yea.. and I wish that the Republicans could shed their religious right nutjobs... which probably makes me lean harder towards the Libertarians.

You're starting to come around. Don't fight it...move towards the light.

[Thondalar]

So to review, we don't need something to actually happen to say how it works in practice, if I explicitly say something happens I am acting like it never has, and (as always) I'm the bad guy. Sheesh!

What? It has happened. Over and over and over. We have ample evidence to see what works in practice and what does not. While you have no explicitly said it never has happened, your stance assumes such, because if you recognize it has happened, you would have a different stance. I've never once said you're the bad guy, you just need to work the equation out to the end, instead of stopping half way through and going "proof!".


And you wonder why I say you're not good at quantitative stuff. :D

No, I wonder why you still insist on being pedantic about particulars instead of having an actual discourse on the very obvious point I was making.


This is great rhetoric. As the Founders understood, however, your system of government can't be to just scream "FREEEEEEDOOOOOMMMMMM!!!" These romances are enjoyable, of course, but in the real world we understand that there is a balance between freedom and security, and that in fact some freedoms can only be obtained by curtailing others. This is the system everyone agrees to, because it's the only system.

Totally agree. However, I feel the "balance" was met some time ago, roughly 100 years(ish), and everything since then is the unintended consequence of the bastardization of our government over roughly that same period.


The only question people have is where specifically on the continuum we should place the slider, what particular shade of gray is the best. As always, history is far more boring than you give it credit for. The Constitution did not represent some grand divide with the past, some shining punctuation of the undifferentiated equilibrium, some perfect eternal ideal. Your favorite amendment (#10) is taken almost word for word from the Articles of Confederation, for example, and it so happens that that almost alone is enough to demonstrate that your understanding of the Founders' intent is fundamentally flawed.

And that is actually the fundamental flaw in our Modern America. There should be no gray areas. The words laid down are pretty clear. If we followed them, we wouldn't have half the social problems we do now. You keep bringing up the 10th Amendment..."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."....I'm sorry, but what part of that is unclear?

[Warriorbird]

The words laid down are pretty clear.

215 years of legal scholars would strongly disagree with you.

[Latrinsorm]

What? It has happened. Over and over and over. We have ample evidence to see what works in practice and what does not. While you have no explicitly said it never has happened, your stance assumes such, because if you recognize it has happened, you would have a different stance. I've never once said you're the bad guy, you just need to work the equation out to the end, instead of stopping half way through and going "proof!".You assume a premise without realizing it; namely, that if a power is ever abused we will be worse off to grant it. This is not true and I do not believe it. Some policemen abuse their guns, but we are better off for having an armed police force. (Whether we are better off for having a militarized police force is another matter entirely, of course.) Some politicians abuse nuclear weapons, but we are better off for having a nuclear United States. In the same way, some people will abuse universal surveillance, but we will be better off for having it. That you accuse me of only working the equation half way is of course worth a chuckle in this context.
Totally agree. However, I feel the "balance" was met some time ago, roughly 100 years(ish), and everything since then is the unintended consequence of the bastardization of our government over roughly that same period.Do you think the fact that you are a white man influences your belief that women's suffrage and the civil rights movement fall under the category of "bastardizations of our government"? Or more generally, the decline in power of the white male?
And that is actually the fundamental flaw in our Modern America. There should be no gray areas. The words laid down are pretty clear. If we followed them, we wouldn't have half the social problems we do now. You keep bringing up the 10th Amendment..."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."....I'm sorry, but what part of that is unclear?It is perfectly clear to me. :D The 10th Amendment does not rule out that there are explicit and implicit powers in the Constitution, the context and writings of the Founders confirm that implicit powers exist and were intended, and implicit is a pretty good definition of a gray area, no?

[Wrathbringer]

You assume a premise without realizing it; namely, that if a power is ever abused we will be worse off to grant it. This is not true and I do not believe it. Some policemen abuse their guns, but we are better off for having an armed police force. (Whether we are better off for having a militarized police force is another matter entirely, of course.) Some politicians abuse nuclear weapons, but we are better off for having a nuclear United States. In the same way, some people will abuse universal surveillance, but we will be better off for having it. That you accuse me of only working the equation half way is of course worth a chuckle in this context.Do you think the fact that you are a white man influences your belief that women's suffrage and the civil rights movement fall under the category of "bastardizations of our government"? Or more generally, the decline in power of the white male?It is perfectly clear to me. :D The 10th Amendment does not rule out that there are explicit and implicit powers in the Constitution, the context and writings of the Founders confirm that implicit powers exist and were intended, and implicit is a pretty good definition of a gray area, no?

You should be in politics. You're good. I'm serious.

[Atlanteax]

You should be in politics. You're good. I'm serious.

Latrin would make a good Republican.

[Latrinsorm]

aww you guys

I AM a good Republican!!! :cry:

[Thondalar]

215 years of legal scholars would strongly disagree with you.

That's an issue of people being people and trying to twist them to their own ends instead of taking them as they were written. I feel like we're going around in circles here..."legal scholars" are why we never should have had a bill of rights. We didn't need to define the rights, because then we have a basis by which to "clarify" those definitions. Hamilton is rolling over in his grave right now yelling "I told you so!". The first and second amendments are assaulted regularly by your "scholars", with great success in some areas, and the fourth amendment might as well not even exist anymore in large areas of our Country.

[Warriorbird]

That's an issue of people being people and trying to twist them to their own ends instead of taking them as they were written. I feel like we're going around in circles here..."legal scholars" are why we never should have had a bill of rights. We didn't need to define the rights, because then we have a basis by which to "clarify" those definitions. Hamilton is rolling over in his grave right now yelling "I told you so!". The first and second amendments are assaulted regularly by your "scholars", with great success in some areas, and the fourth amendment might as well not even exist anymore in large areas of our Country.

Many of those folks would feel you were attempting to do precisely the same thing. It's the problem with law. You might think it's "taking things as they're written" but it hasn't been that simple since we had written laws.

[Thondalar]

You assume a premise without realizing it; namely, that if a power is ever abused we will be worse off to grant it. This is not true and I do not believe it. Some policemen abuse their guns, but we are better off for having an armed police force. (Whether we are better off for having a militarized police force is another matter entirely, of course.) Some politicians abuse nuclear weapons, but we are better off for having a nuclear United States. In the same way, some people will abuse universal surveillance, but we will be better off for having it. That you accuse me of only working the equation half way is of course worth a chuckle in this context.

Lolwhut? It has nothing to do with if a power is abused, but when. You speak of police and nuclear weapons, which are completely out of the scope of this conversation. It is beneath you, if I can be frank. Obvious logical fallacies.


Do you think the fact that you are a white man influences your belief that women's suffrage and the civil rights movement fall under the category of "bastardizations of our government"? Or more generally, the decline in power of the white male?

That is not my belief, so no. My belief is that those things were only necessary because we didn't follow the Constitution explicitly. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that women can't vote, or that blacks must be slaves. Therefore, our governments (Federal, State) were in the wrong for making it so.


It is perfectly clear to me. :D The 10th Amendment does not rule out that there are explicit and implicit powers in the Constitution, the context and writings of the Founders confirm that implicit powers exist and were intended, and implicit is a pretty good definition of a gray area, no?

Well no, not really. What it says is that the powers of the Federal government are clearly listed herein, and they have no power at all outside of the definitions of that document. Every other power is reserved to the States, or to the people. It is pretty much why we're still a Republic, even after 1865.

[Thondalar]

You should be in politics. You're good. I'm serious.

If by good you mean good at double-talk and obfuscation of facts, you're 100% correct.

[Thondalar]

Many of those folks would feel you were attempting to do precisely the same thing. It's the problem with law. You might think it's "taking things as they're written" but it hasn't been that simple since we had written laws.

Except that we're talking about a document that has the very specific stated purpose of regulating a federal government as opposed to regulating citizens. Any act that reduces its capacity to do so should be immediately recognized by anyone with a brain as being contrary to the intent.

[Warriorbird]

Except that we're talking about a document that has the very specific stated purpose of regulating a federal government as opposed to regulating citizens. Any act that reduces its capacity to do so should be immediately recognized by anyone with a brain as being contrary to the intent.

It's certainly one interpretation of it.

[Atlanteax]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/graphics/2015/03/24/150325beelertoon_c.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

That's an issue of people being people and trying to twist them to their own ends instead of taking them as they were written. I feel like we're going around in circles here..."legal scholars" are why we never should have had a bill of rights. We didn't need to define the rights, because then we have a basis by which to "clarify" those definitions. Hamilton is rolling over in his grave right now yelling "I told you so!". The first and second amendments are assaulted regularly by your "scholars", with great success in some areas, and the fourth amendment might as well not even exist anymore in large areas of our Country.He's yelling at someone, that's for sure... :D
Lolwhut? It has nothing to do with if a power is abused, but when. You speak of police and nuclear weapons, which are completely out of the scope of this conversation. It is beneath you, if I can be frank. Obvious logical fallacies.How are police and nuclear weapons out of the scope of a conversation about government abuses, logically or otherwise? Every power the government gets will be abused. The job of the thinker is to evaluate whether the benefits will be worth the costs. Examining only the costs is only working the equation half way, eh?
That is not my belief, so no. My belief is that those things were only necessary because we didn't follow the Constitution explicitly. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that women can't vote, or that blacks must be slaves. Therefore, our governments (Federal, State) were in the wrong for making it so.Nowhere does it say that any more. The Constitution explicitly allowed non-free persons in the three-fifths clause. I agree that the Founders were in the wrong for allowing slavery with the Constitution, but in Their infinite wisdom they provided a way to fix that and the other errors They made: Amendments! Odd process for them to explicitly include if they didn't think the Constitution shouldn't be changed, no?
Well no, not really. What it says is that the powers of the Federal government are clearly listed herein, and they have no power at all outside of the definitions of that document. Every other power is reserved to the States, or to the people. It is pretty much why we're still a Republic, even after 1865.What's more clear than necessary and proper? Hamilton, your friend and mine, used exactly that clause to justify the creation of a national bank, didn't he?