First compulsory healthcare. Now compulsory voting?

[Aquitaine]

And you tell me this because.....
Does it somehow defeat my claim that governmental power is a dangerous thing, & shouldn't be blithely expanded?

No, though I think it contests your claim that the private sector is by design a more benign alternative.
Authority with little or no accounting is dangerous: whether it be State, Corporate or Religious.

Though ideally, if living in a Democracy, I would prefer the State having the most power of the three, since the average person's political vote would speak more than the average person's "share" in a company.
Having a "Shareholder Democracy" only works if everyone can afford an equal amount to invest in.

You no doubt will disagree with me there; I assume you'd prefer the Shareholder Democracy to Political Democracy?

 

[Aquitaine]

Thanks, as you may guess, these were not isolated incidents. Up here in da U.P., in Calumet, mine-owner goon
squads at a worker Christmas party earlier in the 1900's created a panic through scare tactics but locked the doors so people couldn't get out, and scores died, mostly women and children. The mine owners up here used to hire children, strap dynamite around their waist, and have them crawl into crevices to set the charges. So many on the right especially seemingly forget their history or just prefer to ignore it.

Union violence is never justified, imo, but at the least unions offer a check on the dictatorial-type of authoritarianism that all too often is found in the business world. Under federal law, union activity, including elections, can be, and should be imo, monitored by the fed, and state and local officials have some oversight as well.

Here's where I much prefer Canadian law on this, namely that workers have the full right to unionize, and the province cannot set up any roadblocks to that, including passing so-called "right-to-work laws" that many states here in the States have passed that are simply a dishonest way of trying to weaken unions. And then we wonder why middle-income wages have not kept up with economic growth.

Indeed, violence form either side is unjustified. It saddens me to read about the ridiculous extremes people will go to in order to get their way.

Germany, like Canada apparently strike a good balance between Unions and Employers. From an outsider perspective, the US is right-wing and on the Employers side; no matter how many Americans (of a certain political alignment) would like to claim otherwise. Obama is also not considered Left-wing, at most he is Centre.

Just digitize the whole process and make it mandatory to participate. Digitization would also make it possible to exclude the possibility of "none of the above" or nonsense type ballots.

Why on Earth do you view votes of no confidence as nonsense?
You're beginning to sound like one of those adolescent authoritarians.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, though I think it contests your claim that the private sector is by design a more benign alternative.

I don't see that you are contesting my claim about Americastan by bringing up
other countries, other times & hypothetical scenarios as counter-examples.

Authority with little or no accounting is dangerous: whether it be State, Corporate or Religious.

Again, we don't disagree, so I don't see why you bring it up.
If anything, it provides support for not expanding governmental control over us, eg, mandatory voting.

Though ideally, if living in a Democracy, I would prefer the State having the most power of the three, since the average person's political vote would speak more than the average person's "share" in a company.

We do have a government more powerful than the private sector.

Having a "Shareholder Democracy" only works if everyone can afford an equal amount to invest in.

If one believes in the conspiracy that corporations run everything, this would matter more.
But I don't.

You no doubt will disagree with me there; I assume you'd prefer the Shareholder Democracy to Political Democracy?

I don't buy into the conspiracy you presume I prefer.

This reminds me of Xians who tell me I'm an atheist because I hate God.
There's a fallacy of some kind in there somewhere.

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't see that you are contesting my claim about Americastan by bringing up
other countries, other times & hypothetical scenarios as counter-examples.

Other times including American companies. I'm not just talking about non-US cases.

Again, we don't disagree, so I don't see why you bring it up.
If anything, it provides support for not expanding governmental control over us, eg, mandatory voting.

In my opinion, the balance of the three is reactive: if Corporate and Religious lose ground, State will gain; if State and Religious lose ground, Corporate will gain etc.
I personally prefer more State than you, so in my opinion I'm open to the idea of Mandatory Voting, along with other things such as publicly-funded elections and potential removal of corporate personhood.

We do have a government more powerful than the private sector.

On violence, yes, and I personally would like to keep it that way. Ideally the Democratic process is supposed to aid the citizens in keeping the State in-check and accountable.

If one believes in the conspiracy that corporations run everything, this would matter more.
But I don't.

A Shareholder Democracy isn't a conspiracy theory, it's just an alternative model. Margaret Thatcher tried to initiate it in the UK, for example.

I don't buy into the conspiracy you presume I prefer.

This reminds me of Xians who tell me I'm an atheist because I hate God.
There's a fallacy of some kind in there somewhere.

See above.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Why on Earth do you view votes of no confidence as nonsense?
You're beginning to sound like one of those adolescent authoritarians.

Insulting people with views you disagree with, rather than debating the issues with the view itself, is not going to prove anything more than your incapability to engage in a mature discussion. Would you care to try again? This time without the need for insults?

 

[Revoltingest]

Other times including American companies. I'm not just talking about non-US cases.
In my opinion, the balance of the three is reactive: if Corporate and Religious lose ground, State will gain; if State and Religious lose ground, Corporate will gain etc.
I personally prefer more State than you, so in my opinion I'm open to the idea of Mandatory Voting, along with other things such as publicly-funded elections and potential removal of corporate personhood.
On violence, yes, and I personally would like to keep it that way. Ideally the Democratic process is supposed to aid the citizens in keeping the State in-check and accountable.
A Shareholder Democracy isn't a conspiracy theory, it's just an alternative model. Margaret Thatcher tried to initiate it in the UK, for example.
See above.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the benefits & dangers of increasing governmental authority over us.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Obama likes the idea to again force people by gunpoint.

Sometimes your frenetic hyperbole barely rises to the level of pitifully silly ...
... on the other hand, you may well be right on substance given that some people are too pitifully silly to warrant the right to vote.

 

[Aquitaine]

Insulting people with views you disagree with, rather than debating the issues with the view itself, is not going to prove anything more than your incapability to engage in a mature discussion. Would you care to try again? This time without the need for insults?

Okay: Why on Earth do you view votes of no confidence as nonsense?

We'll have to agree to disagree about the benefits & dangers of increasing governmental authority over us.

Indeed: I think we've gone as far as we could on this topic, which isn't bad considering we're quite far apart on the political spectrum.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Okay: Why on Earth do you view votes of no confidence as nonsense?

I view such votes as nonsense because I believe, for a voting system to work, one must actually participate in the voting itself. A vote of no confidence just shows one desires an option that is not on the ballot. Nonsense votes like "Mickey Mouse", "Jesus Christ" or "my neighbors dog" serve only to waste paper. Voting "none of the above" is more polite but still a waste of paper.

Digitizing the voting process would resolve this issue, and even if votes of no confidence were permitted (a text entry field), at least an official need not count through invalid ballots. In other words, the computer would calculate the votes as well as discard the invalid ballots.

 

[Aquitaine]

I view such votes as nonsense because I believe, for a voting system to work, one must actually participate in the voting itself. A vote of no confidence just shows one desires an option that is not on the ballot. Nonsense votes like "Mickey Mouse", "Jesus Christ" or "my neighbors dog" serve only to waste paper. Voting "none of the above" is more polite but still a waste of paper.

Digitizing the voting process would resolve this issue, and even if votes of no confidence were permitted (a text entry field), at least an official need not count through invalid ballots. In other words, the computer would calculate the votes as well as discard the invalid ballots.

Voting for silly candidates I agree is a waste, but a vote of no confidence is just as important - if not more important - than a standard vote in itself. Otherwise you end up being forced to vote for either Coke, Pepsi or Dr. Pepper. . . when you don't drink soda.

 

[4consideration]

I am against the idea of compulsory voting.

I'm against making so many things compulsory. Mostly I'm against the assumption that it's ok for the government to just make things compulsory, so that people don't even bat an eye when it is presented. There are very few things I think ought to be compulsory. Voting is not one of them.

I can see why politicians that would like to purchase votes by offering groups of people stuff would like the idea. It would force people that otherwise don't care enough to vote to vote -- so while they're at it, since they have to -- they'll probably vote for the candidate that is promising they'll personally get something.

I wonder if this isn't some way connected to a concern about the possible rising of a third party, and a desire to squash real change by reducing the voting power of the people that are actually paying attention to politics at this time.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am against the idea of compulsory voting.

I'm against making so many things compulsory. Mostly I'm against the assumption that it's ok for the government to just make things compulsory, so that people don't even bat an eye when it is presented. There are very few things I think ought to be compulsory. Voting is not one of them.

I can see why politicians that would like to purchase votes by offering groups of people stuff would like the idea. It would force people that otherwise don't care enough to vote to vote -- so while they're at it, since they have to -- they'll probably vote for the candidate that is promising they'll personally get something.

I wonder if this isn't some way connected to a concern about the possible rising of a third party, and a desire to squash real change by reducing the voting power of the people that are actually paying attention to politics at this time.

I hadn't considered the pander power aspect of legally required voting.
But it perfectly explains why Obama is attracted to it.
The NYT seems friendly towards it too for a similar reason....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/u...-sanders-would-have-a-better-chance.html?_r=0

 

[Aquitaine]

I can see why politicians that would like to purchase votes by offering groups of people stuff would like the idea. It would force people that otherwise don't care enough to vote to vote -- so while they're at it, since they have to -- they'll probably vote for the candidate that is promising they'll personally get something.

I wonder if this isn't some way connected to a concern about the possible rising of a third party, and a desire to squash real change by reducing the voting power of the people that are actually paying attention to politics at this time.

With a vote of no confidence included, surely this would help visualise the need for a 3rd party?
As for the pandering aspect (which I gather you're talking about welfare) that can swing the other way too: "I'll vote for X party because they offer lower taxes".

 

[Revoltingest]

With a vote of no confidence included, surely this would help visualise the need for a 3rd party?
As for the pandering aspect (which I gather you're talking about welfare) that can swing the other way too: "I'll vote for X party because they offer lower taxes".

Proposed tax increases typically target only the fewer higher earners.
With slim pick'ns there, pols will instead promise largess to the masses.
And most Americastanians (including this pro SS recipient) now receive government benefits.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...now-receive-government-benefits/#352058486233

Btw, I still pay far more income tax than I get from Social Security.

 

[4consideration]

With a vote of no confidence included, surely this would help visualise the need for a 3rd party?
As for the pandering aspect (which I gather you're talking about welfare) that can swing the other way too: "I'll vote for X party because they offer lower taxes".

Would you rephrase your question please? I'm not sure I'm understand what you're asking.

I'll answer what I think you're asking. I don't think the ability for a vote of no confidence reduces what I was saying about pandering for votes. I think no confidence votes are cast by people actually paying attention.

Definitely it could work both ways. I'm thinking it's something both (Big Two) sides could be in favor of, but mostly so both sides could continue with business as usual without the threat of a third party rocking the boat.

 

[4consideration]

Proposed tax increases typically target only the fewer higher earners.
With slim pick'ns there, pols will instead promise largess to the masses.
And most Americastanians (including this pro SS recipient) now receive government benefits.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...now-receive-government-benefits/#352058486233

Btw, I still pay far more income tax than I get from Social Security.

I think it's something I would expect more Democrats to be in favor of, but I also don't trust the Republican party, either. I mean I think the big-government type Republicans (the ones that caused me to leave the party) might actually end up seeing it as a way of getting back some lost votes -- if the people that got fed up with them and stopped voting suddenly had to vote.

I think sometimes the Dems and Pubs are so much alike, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't see a real possibility of a third party emerging at this time, and suddenly decided they could agree on something -- and celebrate it, for effect, as well.

 

[Aquitaine]

Proposed tax increases typically target only the fewer higher earners.
With slim pick'ns there, pols will instead promise largess to the masses.
And most Americastanians (including this pro SS recipient) now receive government benefits.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...now-receive-government-benefits/#352058486233

I dunno, a lot of low income people are attracted to the idea of low tax, low benefits. Same here in the UK, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

Btw, I still pay far more income tax than I get from Social Security.

Well, you aren't just paying for your SS returns: you're contributing to all Federal institutions and programs including the military.

Would you rephrase your question please? I'm not sure I'm understand what you're asking.

I'll answer what I think you're asking. I don't think the ability for a vote of no confidence reduces what I was saying about pandering for votes. I think no confidence votes are cast by people actually paying attention.

Definitely it could work both ways. I'm thinking it's something both (Big Two) sides could be in favor of, but mostly so both sides could continue with business as usual without the threat of a third party rocking the boat.

Apologies, what I mean to say is that I believe an election resulting in a majority of no confidence votes would surely delegitimise the Big Two, and emphasise the need for new parties.
That, paired with limitations on large campaign contributions would help democratise the voting process in my opinion.

I mean I think the big-government type Republicans (the ones that caused me to leave the party) might actually end up seeing it as a way of getting back some lost votes -- if the people that got fed up with them and stopped voting suddenly had to vote.

That wouldn't happen if the voters chose the "Non of the above" option.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's something I would expect more Democrats to be in favor of, but I also don't trust the Republican party, either. I mean I think the big-government type Republicans (the ones that caused me to leave the party) might actually end up seeing it as a way of getting back some lost votes -- if the people that got fed up with them and stopped voting suddenly had to vote.

I think sometimes the Dems and Pubs are so much alike, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't see a real possibility of a third party emerging at this time, and suddenly decided they could agree on something -- and celebrate it, for effect, as well.

Well, of course they're alike.
You know the difference....I've posted it before.
Democrats pretend to like black folk,
& Repubs pretend to like free enterprise.

 

[4consideration]

Apologies, what I mean to say is that I believe an election resulting in a majority of no confidence votes would surely delegitimise the Big Two, and emphasis the need for new parties.
That, paired with limitations on large campaign contributions would help democratise the voting process in my opinion.

OK. I see your point. Although to be an actual winner of an election as a member of a third party (like Libertarian) would make it even more clear, IMO. That was what I was going for.

I don't expect what I'm about to say to happen, but I would prefer that campaign contributions were limited to people. My thought is that if you can't cast a vote, you can't contribute. That would remove all organizations from the possibility of contributing/buying influence. I think technology has made it possible to for politicians to get their message to people much cheaper than was possible in the past, and that these huge expenditures on campaigns are part of the corruption problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

I dunno, a lot of low income people are attracted to the idea of low tax, low benefits. Same here in the UK, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

It's possible for such people to exist.
But in Americastan, most of us want to get more free stuff by taxing the other guy.

...you aren't just paying for your SS returns: you're contributing to all Federal institutions and programs including the military.

I know.
It's not about that.