Voting Question
-
A lot of people are hard of thinking. It takes too much effort. Luckily for them, there are plenty of people ready and willing to give them opinions to use as their own. Most of us get our initial view of the world from our parents, but a lot of us, while experienceing the world, do so with our brains engaged and form some questions of our own. The answers to which are unique creations of our own thought process. Sadly, I don't think that's a majority of us, and I don't think the proportions will change much over time. But maybe that's the way it's supposed to be. Maybe that's nature doing what it does. But it sure can be frustrating durring election season.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
But it sure can be frustrating during election season.
That's the problem with democracy. It is dedicated to the proposition that 2 idiot votes are worth twice as much as 1 well-informed genius vote.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Adams and Jefferson. -- Always vote for the one you think will perserve liberty (yours).
MrPlankton
(bad guy)"Fear is a hammer, and when the people are beaten finally to the conviction that their existence hangs by a frayed thread, they will be led where they need to go."
(good guy)"Which is where?"
(bad guy)"To a responsible future in a properly managed world."
Dean Koontz, The Good Guy -
BoneSoft wrote:
But it sure can be frustrating during election season.
That's the problem with democracy. It is dedicated to the proposition that 2 idiot votes are worth twice as much as 1 well-informed genius vote.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Amen. I'm all for a free country, but I sometimes entertain the idea of requiring an IQ test before allowing people to procreate. And at least multiplying your vote by a factor related to your IQ, or some other indicator of intelligence.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Amen. I'm all for a free country, but I sometimes entertain the idea of requiring an IQ test before allowing people to procreate. And at least multiplying your vote by a factor related to your IQ, or some other indicator of intelligence.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
And at least multiplying your vote by a factor related to your IQ, or some other indicator of intelligence
One extra vote for every ten points above 110 on Stamford-Binet. No votes for below 100. Test to be given only in standard American English and have a current affairs section equal in difficulty to the citizenship for folks applying for naturalization. And additional vote for every year of service in either the Peace Corps, Police Force, Fire Department or active duty in the Armed Forces (There is something to be said for people smart enough to be willing to put their lives on the line for their community.) 1 extra vote for every $100,000 in net worth - minus the value of your inheritance. And "None of the Above" on every ballot.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And at least multiplying your vote by a factor related to your IQ, or some other indicator of intelligence
One extra vote for every ten points above 110 on Stamford-Binet. No votes for below 100. Test to be given only in standard American English and have a current affairs section equal in difficulty to the citizenship for folks applying for naturalization. And additional vote for every year of service in either the Peace Corps, Police Force, Fire Department or active duty in the Armed Forces (There is something to be said for people smart enough to be willing to put their lives on the line for their community.) 1 extra vote for every $100,000 in net worth - minus the value of your inheritance. And "None of the Above" on every ballot.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Agree with everything but the net worth. Sounds great. Then we'll institude a flat tax of 15%. And shoot any congressman that goes over budget for treason. And we can also pass a law that requires every thing that passes congress to be voted on its own merits. No line item veto, no ear marks, no pork to get signers, no filibusters. It's worth passing or its not. I'm thinking you and I can make us a decent country.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And at least multiplying your vote by a factor related to your IQ, or some other indicator of intelligence
One extra vote for every ten points above 110 on Stamford-Binet. No votes for below 100. Test to be given only in standard American English and have a current affairs section equal in difficulty to the citizenship for folks applying for naturalization. And additional vote for every year of service in either the Peace Corps, Police Force, Fire Department or active duty in the Armed Forces (There is something to be said for people smart enough to be willing to put their lives on the line for their community.) 1 extra vote for every $100,000 in net worth - minus the value of your inheritance. And "None of the Above" on every ballot.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
MrPlankton wrote:
Adams and Jefferson.
You had trouble choosing between them, too?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You had trouble choosing between them, too?
Damn, you're old.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
In terms of "None of the Above", isn't that a kop-out? Yes I saw the film "Brewster's Million" and I saw the funny side of that statement, but in real life, you can't be serious - can you ? Isn't it a recipe for chaos ?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Isn't it a recipe for chaos
It depends on whether the same dumbasses get nominated under the new system. Presumably there are some people among our political parties who would decide that they'd do better on the election if they put people up for office who would appeal to the best and the brightest of the population. Since most primary elections are paid for by the taxpayers, "none of the Above" would also be a choice there. Attempting to push the same old same old onto the public might mean they had no-one on the ballot. btw: I've never seen Brewster's Millions. "None of the Above" is pretty much a staple of Libertarian philosophy.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Agree with everything but the net worth. Sounds great. Then we'll institude a flat tax of 15%. And shoot any congressman that goes over budget for treason. And we can also pass a law that requires every thing that passes congress to be voted on its own merits. No line item veto, no ear marks, no pork to get signers, no filibusters. It's worth passing or its not. I'm thinking you and I can make us a decent country.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
And we can also pass a law that requires every thing that passes congress to be voted on its own merits.
Requiring a 3/5ths majority to pass anything. And a sunset provision that automatically nullifies any law after five years.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
You had trouble choosing between them, too?
Damn, you're old.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
In terms of "None of the Above", isn't that a kop-out? Yes I saw the film "Brewster's Million" and I saw the funny side of that statement, but in real life, you can't be serious - can you ? Isn't it a recipe for chaos ?
True, that could cause problems. I think a better idea would be to dump the primaries and the idea of only having one candidate for each party on the ballot. Everybody who's seriously running should be on the ballot. At the same time, ditch the whole electoral college junk and just count every vote period. I know it would be hard on lobbiest who wouldn't know who to suck up to until the last minute, but that's a positive in itself. Also need to reform campaign contribution laws so you can't have an advantage just because you have more money.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And we can also pass a law that requires every thing that passes congress to be voted on its own merits.
Requiring a 3/5ths majority to pass anything. And a sunset provision that automatically nullifies any law after five years.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
That's an interesting idea.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
That's an interesting idea.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
according to the intended policies that will benefit you and your family the greatest
To me this is a little misleading. Based on campaign promises, that would lead to Obama for a whole lot of people. And if we lived in Obama's fantasy world where a 'tax cut' for 95% were possible, that would seem to be most beneficial for most people. But personally, I think his socialist programs will hurt the country in the long run, and likely most inhabitants as well. Personally, I don't evaluate their policies looking for what I get out of it, but what will be best for the country (which in the long run should probably benefit me personally). I have to weigh justice, national security, jobs, economy and law for a balance I think is best for all. I'm not suggesting that you are voting selfishly, I just think that that statement taken as-is could be misconstrued to mean that. And I know plenty of people who unapologetically vote based soley on "what's in it for me". I just think it's short sighted and irresponsible to do so. Of course it's their perogative, but I wish more thought went into every vote.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Obama's fantasy world where a 'tax cut' for 95% were possible,
To be perfectly fair, If you include payroll taxes, and perhaps sales taxes, in the equation, then a decrease in the total tax bill for 95% (created in part by an income tax rebate to some who paid no income taxes, but did pay payroll taxes) is likely quite possible.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Obama's fantasy world where a 'tax cut' for 95% were possible,
To be perfectly fair, If you include payroll taxes, and perhaps sales taxes, in the equation, then a decrease in the total tax bill for 95% (created in part by an income tax rebate to some who paid no income taxes, but did pay payroll taxes) is likely quite possible.
There're two things I don't like about this. First, on paper it may technically be valid to say, but I don't believe he can do it will all he proposes to spend. Second is that a 'tax cut' for a large portion of the population (who don't pay federal income taxes at all) this amounts to a welfare check. I think it may be technically valid to say, but it's misleading. It disguises the socialist nature of the plan, and it sounds really great to all the "what's in it for me" people. "The top 5%? That can't be much, right?" And if he really can get this plan in place, it will be extremely damaging. And on that subject, I recently ran accross a well known quote I'd seen before, that seems pretty relevent right now: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler 1787
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.