Grenadier2
New member
Continuation...
CRY HAVOC! AND RELEASE THE DOGS OF WAR!!
Or. maybe we could just keep the thread going
CRY HAVOC! AND RELEASE THE DOGS OF WAR!!
Or. maybe we could just keep the thread going
Voter Qualification...Part II
- Thread starter Grenadier2
- Start date
Rob Pincus
New member
You said that you were not in favor of giving the gov't more power, yet I can't get over the idea that to let them have any influence over who gets to vote would seem to me to be the most powerful thing you could give them.
I agree that those in power (political and media) have great influence as it is, especially over the uneducated and indifferent, but to actually instill the gov't with the power to take away a person's ability (right/privilege/whatever) to vote would not be the right way to go... I don't just see it as a slipery slope, I see it as a full fledged Cliff.
------------------
-Essayons
I agree that those in power (political and media) have great influence as it is, especially over the uneducated and indifferent, but to actually instill the gov't with the power to take away a person's ability (right/privilege/whatever) to vote would not be the right way to go... I don't just see it as a slipery slope, I see it as a full fledged Cliff.
------------------
-Essayons
Do not cry havoc, where you should but hunt With modest warrant.
------------------
Want to feel your age?Check it out. http://web.superb.net/boy/age1.html
------------------
Want to feel your age?Check it out. http://web.superb.net/boy/age1.html
Jedi Oomodo
New member
Since we're talking about voting rights/privileges/whatevrit'scalledtoday, I had somethoughts last night on things that have nothing to do with restricting voting rights but more with how elections are handled.
As it stands right now, throughout an election day (I'm thinking Presidential), the current tallies of how many votes So-and-so has and how many Joe Blow has &c are given to the news media and broadcast on national TV and radio. Thus, when the polls on the eastern seaboard close at 7 pm, the people on the west coast (where it's 5 pm) know who's winning so far. This, I believe, discourages many people from voting as it gives the impression (true or false) that So-and-so has already won and that to go vote for Joe Blow would be a waste of time. Why not keep election results secret until all polls in all states are closed and the votes tallied? Last time I checked we were supposed to have a secret ballot, anyway. Am I the only who views the practice of making election results public before the election is over unethical?
Also, is anyone out there a constitutional scholar, who can tell me the reasoning behind the electoral college? As I see it, any system that can cause a candidate who lost the popular vote to still be elected to office is fatally flawed. I'm sure, though, this was not the intent of the Founders. Perhaps, through adding states and reapportioning electoral votes, have we monkeyed with the system so that it's not what it used to be? I personally would either like to see the Electors done away with altogether, or at least modified so that a candidate only gets a proportion of electoral votes in accordance with his share of the popular vote.
M2
------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP! RKBA!
A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.
As it stands right now, throughout an election day (I'm thinking Presidential), the current tallies of how many votes So-and-so has and how many Joe Blow has &c are given to the news media and broadcast on national TV and radio. Thus, when the polls on the eastern seaboard close at 7 pm, the people on the west coast (where it's 5 pm) know who's winning so far. This, I believe, discourages many people from voting as it gives the impression (true or false) that So-and-so has already won and that to go vote for Joe Blow would be a waste of time. Why not keep election results secret until all polls in all states are closed and the votes tallied? Last time I checked we were supposed to have a secret ballot, anyway. Am I the only who views the practice of making election results public before the election is over unethical?
Also, is anyone out there a constitutional scholar, who can tell me the reasoning behind the electoral college? As I see it, any system that can cause a candidate who lost the popular vote to still be elected to office is fatally flawed. I'm sure, though, this was not the intent of the Founders. Perhaps, through adding states and reapportioning electoral votes, have we monkeyed with the system so that it's not what it used to be? I personally would either like to see the Electors done away with altogether, or at least modified so that a candidate only gets a proportion of electoral votes in accordance with his share of the popular vote.
M2
------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP! RKBA!
A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.
Grenadier2
New member
Rob,
Getting back to the intent of The Founders is not giving the government any more power. It will help in restraining them.
It will reduce their power base, first off. And second, the government has already seized power over voting...what I want is to seize it back.
Eliminating the voting franchise for those who rely on government for a living is not giving anyone more power, except the qualified ie: the productive.
And still, no one has been able to defend the practice of allowing suffrage to parasites. Nor will they be able to...it is indefensible and illogical.
Jedi,
I am but a humble student of The Constitution, but I will look into the Electoral College. The Founders put it there for a reason, and I dont want to mis-speak what that reason is.
BTW, I agree on the media reporting of elections. I have long thought that was a big part of the problem.
Shotgun,
Wow! Fan mail! Cool
Getting back to the intent of The Founders is not giving the government any more power. It will help in restraining them.
It will reduce their power base, first off. And second, the government has already seized power over voting...what I want is to seize it back.
Eliminating the voting franchise for those who rely on government for a living is not giving anyone more power, except the qualified ie: the productive.
And still, no one has been able to defend the practice of allowing suffrage to parasites. Nor will they be able to...it is indefensible and illogical.
Jedi,
I am but a humble student of The Constitution, but I will look into the Electoral College. The Founders put it there for a reason, and I dont want to mis-speak what that reason is.
BTW, I agree on the media reporting of elections. I have long thought that was a big part of the problem.
Shotgun,
Wow! Fan mail! Cool
Ed Brunner
New member
I think the electoral college exists because the founders believed that it would be impossible to tabulate the popular vote. Little did they know about cyber-math, huh?
Actually the electoral college exists so that we can have literate and well educated voters.That should satisfy the purists among you.
Our Republic is meant to be finely tuned-promoting the common good under the Constitution without becoming communistic or socialistic. And you can see what happens when the Constitution or the common good is ignored.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Actually the electoral college exists so that we can have literate and well educated voters.That should satisfy the purists among you.
Our Republic is meant to be finely tuned-promoting the common good under the Constitution without becoming communistic or socialistic. And you can see what happens when the Constitution or the common good is ignored.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Grenadier2,
I share your frustration over the ignorant and non-productive voting for government largess.
I share your apparent frustration over the number of people on the federal teat!
But I am vehemently and diametrically opposed to having the government determine who can vote! So let's examine your plan as I presently understand it.
If someone gets money from the government they are a parasite and should not be permitted to vote. Got it.
Military retirees; orphans,widows, and retirees on Social Security; people temporarily on unemployment; Native Americans drawing supplementary income from the government; Students using government loans or grants; Farmers receiving government subsidies; Schools/Colleges/Universities receiving government support; all government employees; all active duty military personnel; all federal law enforcement personnel; ALL "those who rely on government for a living"; and God knows only how many others.
Fine, cancel their voting rights until they can support the government and not be "parasites".
When Billy Clinton wants to control the vote, he simply puts all non-Democrats on the dole (not "Dole") and disenfranchises them.
Before YOU start determining who can and can not vote, note you are not in the decision-making process! If you get the system you want, you might find yourself on the political sidelines.
We have beat this subject pretty hard. We've had general pro/con comments.
Now, let's hear how you would implement this "voter eligibility" plan so it would discriminate only against the people you don't think should have input to our political system.
Which government officials would determine who is eligible to vote for government officials? Are those political positions selected by voters or appointed by the government? How would the U.S. Dept of Voter Eligibility be established? Who would run it? What kind of database would be required to determine and maintain voter eligibility? What checks or appeals would we have to their decisions?
Would the "parasites" who depend on government income, but have other income as well (and are taxed on that income) have a sliding scale to determine whether they "rely on the government for a living" or not? If they are taxed but not permitted to vote, that is "Taxation without representation" - something our Founding Fathers ALSO had something to say about.
You're in charge. Establish and run your Voter Eligibility organization.
Specifics, please.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 25, 1999).]
I share your frustration over the ignorant and non-productive voting for government largess.
I share your apparent frustration over the number of people on the federal teat!
But I am vehemently and diametrically opposed to having the government determine who can vote! So let's examine your plan as I presently understand it.
If someone gets money from the government they are a parasite and should not be permitted to vote. Got it.
Military retirees; orphans,widows, and retirees on Social Security; people temporarily on unemployment; Native Americans drawing supplementary income from the government; Students using government loans or grants; Farmers receiving government subsidies; Schools/Colleges/Universities receiving government support; all government employees; all active duty military personnel; all federal law enforcement personnel; ALL "those who rely on government for a living"; and God knows only how many others.
Fine, cancel their voting rights until they can support the government and not be "parasites".
When Billy Clinton wants to control the vote, he simply puts all non-Democrats on the dole (not "Dole") and disenfranchises them.
Before YOU start determining who can and can not vote, note you are not in the decision-making process! If you get the system you want, you might find yourself on the political sidelines.
We have beat this subject pretty hard. We've had general pro/con comments.
Now, let's hear how you would implement this "voter eligibility" plan so it would discriminate only against the people you don't think should have input to our political system.
Which government officials would determine who is eligible to vote for government officials? Are those political positions selected by voters or appointed by the government? How would the U.S. Dept of Voter Eligibility be established? Who would run it? What kind of database would be required to determine and maintain voter eligibility? What checks or appeals would we have to their decisions?
Would the "parasites" who depend on government income, but have other income as well (and are taxed on that income) have a sliding scale to determine whether they "rely on the government for a living" or not? If they are taxed but not permitted to vote, that is "Taxation without representation" - something our Founding Fathers ALSO had something to say about.
You're in charge. Establish and run your Voter Eligibility organization.
Specifics, please.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 25, 1999).]
Grenadier2
New member
Ok, Dennis
What I said was that those who rely on government for their subsistance, besides a paycheck...that means that all those retirees get their pensions, etc, and are not penalized. It also does not affect federal employees and military personnel. I think that got lost in the numerous posts...someone who works for the government cannot be called a parasite. There are plenty of other things we can call them
In other words, if you rely on government for your living, but dont work for the government, then thats pretty easy to figure out who is not eligible.
And, truth be known, many of the people who recieve money from the government, even as supplemental income, should not be getting it. That money is NOT the Feds to give away.
And how, exactly, could I be put on the dole by the government? I have a job, and I wont take the money....so how would that work? Besides, it would take quite a bit of money to put 57% of the eligible voters on the dole, just like that.
Now, I may not be in the decision process, but then, neither is the government. The only people who can disenfranchise someone are the people who take the money.
So, I guess, as a start, the only folks who would be disenfranchised would be the ones I complained about originally. If we dont want to disenfranchise the others (assistance, etc) that would require "weaning" them off the government (actually our) money.
We dont need a whole new department in the government, either. The folks who oversee voting now can handle this, I would think. It cant be that hard to figure out for them. The government could provide a list of the ineligible voters to the various state agencies that oversee it now.
Just an idea
What I said was that those who rely on government for their subsistance, besides a paycheck...that means that all those retirees get their pensions, etc, and are not penalized. It also does not affect federal employees and military personnel. I think that got lost in the numerous posts...someone who works for the government cannot be called a parasite. There are plenty of other things we can call them
In other words, if you rely on government for your living, but dont work for the government, then thats pretty easy to figure out who is not eligible.
And, truth be known, many of the people who recieve money from the government, even as supplemental income, should not be getting it. That money is NOT the Feds to give away.
And how, exactly, could I be put on the dole by the government? I have a job, and I wont take the money....so how would that work? Besides, it would take quite a bit of money to put 57% of the eligible voters on the dole, just like that.
Now, I may not be in the decision process, but then, neither is the government. The only people who can disenfranchise someone are the people who take the money.
So, I guess, as a start, the only folks who would be disenfranchised would be the ones I complained about originally. If we dont want to disenfranchise the others (assistance, etc) that would require "weaning" them off the government (actually our) money.
We dont need a whole new department in the government, either. The folks who oversee voting now can handle this, I would think. It cant be that hard to figure out for them. The government could provide a list of the ineligible voters to the various state agencies that oversee it now.
Just an idea
My friend's idea is that, if you are an employee of the federal government, you cannot vote, or your vote is only counted 1/2. Unconstitutional, but it sure would shrink the gummit.
Ok, I'm a dummbutt, I see that is the same thing Grenadier said. Coincidence.
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited August 26, 1999).]
Ok, I'm a dummbutt, I see that is the same thing Grenadier said. Coincidence.
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited August 26, 1999).]
Grenadier2,
Whew! Things DO start to clear up a bit when you fill in what I missed (or forgot?) from the past. I especially appreciate your comment about what to call SOME government
officials!!
Most retirees deserve to receive Social Security. Their money was taken from them
against their will with a promise that it would be returned at a later date. That promise should be kept, the money should be returned, with interest, in current-day dollars.
There are productive people who can not find work at the moment. Bless ‘em. Give ‘em
unemployment compensation temporarily. They paid for that “insurance” and should
receive it. They’ll become productive soon.
Some people have been dealt with unfairly. One small example: I know a successful
doctor who had a wife had four children. He earned a high income, she was raising
children. When she reached 40, he traded her in on 2 twenties! He ditched his family and
refused (“was unable”) to support his family. She’s temporarily on welfare while she sells
their mansion (it’s in both their names), learns a trade, obtains employment (all the while
supporting her family). She should be helped, not punished.
To me, your best argument seems to involve the generation-after-generation welfare
crowd. I see your point but still can not agree. Your phrase, “The government could
provide a list of the ineligible voters to the various state agencies that oversee it now”
exemplifies our difference of opinion.
You are willing to give the government power to determine voter eligibility. I am not.
Their perfidy and inefficiency alone prevent trusting the government with such a task.
Therefore, although I share your distaste for leaches voting for sustenance, I can not
support such a restriction of voting rights.
However, (grin) I’ll bet the two of us could come up with some other, even more effective
means of getting the parasites to become productive!
I believe anyone on welfare (unemployment, etc.) who is not physically or mentally
disabled, should be required to:
- Attend classes to improve their employment qualifications (e.g. academic/trade skills,
personal discipline, etc.)
- Perform public service to learn skills or a trade (to become employable) and to qualify
for government assistance.
- Show an honest, supervised effort to gain employment. (Employment counselors could
be rated on their success at employing the unemployed.)
I believe employers should receive some sort of incentive to employ the currently
unemployed. I also believe we should eliminate the “minimum wage” laws - but (grin)
that would be an entirely different thread!
But permitting elected officials to determine a policy of who can vote is too dangerous to
our voting rights. It is an unnecessary and dangerous intrusion into our lives and Rights.
Consider the Hydra of gun control. Ask the citizens of California how honest, effective,
and efficient their state government is. Ask Coinneach about the difficulty with his name
change. Consider the NICS system becoming illegal gun and gun owners registration.
There are too many examples of government treachery, inefficiency, stupidity, and
unresponsiveness to trust our voting rights to such a government monster.
We have the same goal. I submit my approach is cheaper, more effective, more
productive, and less dangerous than permitting government tracking (let alone establishing
or evaluating) our voting rights.
Get the parasites back to work and your problem goes away.
Whew! Things DO start to clear up a bit when you fill in what I missed (or forgot?) from the past. I especially appreciate your comment about what to call SOME government
officials!!
Most retirees deserve to receive Social Security. Their money was taken from them
against their will with a promise that it would be returned at a later date. That promise should be kept, the money should be returned, with interest, in current-day dollars.
There are productive people who can not find work at the moment. Bless ‘em. Give ‘em
unemployment compensation temporarily. They paid for that “insurance” and should
receive it. They’ll become productive soon.
Some people have been dealt with unfairly. One small example: I know a successful
doctor who had a wife had four children. He earned a high income, she was raising
children. When she reached 40, he traded her in on 2 twenties! He ditched his family and
refused (“was unable”) to support his family. She’s temporarily on welfare while she sells
their mansion (it’s in both their names), learns a trade, obtains employment (all the while
supporting her family). She should be helped, not punished.
To me, your best argument seems to involve the generation-after-generation welfare
crowd. I see your point but still can not agree. Your phrase, “The government could
provide a list of the ineligible voters to the various state agencies that oversee it now”
exemplifies our difference of opinion.
You are willing to give the government power to determine voter eligibility. I am not.
Their perfidy and inefficiency alone prevent trusting the government with such a task.
Therefore, although I share your distaste for leaches voting for sustenance, I can not
support such a restriction of voting rights.
However, (grin) I’ll bet the two of us could come up with some other, even more effective
means of getting the parasites to become productive!
I believe anyone on welfare (unemployment, etc.) who is not physically or mentally
disabled, should be required to:
- Attend classes to improve their employment qualifications (e.g. academic/trade skills,
personal discipline, etc.)
- Perform public service to learn skills or a trade (to become employable) and to qualify
for government assistance.
- Show an honest, supervised effort to gain employment. (Employment counselors could
be rated on their success at employing the unemployed.)
I believe employers should receive some sort of incentive to employ the currently
unemployed. I also believe we should eliminate the “minimum wage” laws - but (grin)
that would be an entirely different thread!
But permitting elected officials to determine a policy of who can vote is too dangerous to
our voting rights. It is an unnecessary and dangerous intrusion into our lives and Rights.
Consider the Hydra of gun control. Ask the citizens of California how honest, effective,
and efficient their state government is. Ask Coinneach about the difficulty with his name
change. Consider the NICS system becoming illegal gun and gun owners registration.
There are too many examples of government treachery, inefficiency, stupidity, and
unresponsiveness to trust our voting rights to such a government monster.
We have the same goal. I submit my approach is cheaper, more effective, more
productive, and less dangerous than permitting government tracking (let alone establishing
or evaluating) our voting rights.
Get the parasites back to work and your problem goes away.
It's amazing how well attached the stomach is to the backbone...
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
http://www.countdown9199.com
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
http://www.countdown9199.com
Grenadier2
New member
Well, actually, my idea was only an interim step.
Welfare should be eliminated. Private charities did a much better job of helping the truly needy, before LBJ declared war on poverty (and ran it as well as he did Viet Nam..but thats another thread). There is also the FDR factor...
Yes, FDR sold everyone a bill of goods with Social Security, but that system should be privatized. There must be some way to move to that without punishing old people, though the case could be made that some of them wanted the #$%^ program...but I suppose nearly all of the folks who did are gone by now...that was over 60 years ago. However, its my understanding that the average reciepient gets back what they have paid in to the system in about 4 years. After that its basically welfare. Thats a bad thing, and we need to change it.
Unemployment insurance is paid for by employees and their employers. And its limited in time and scope. Thats not a problem, as it comes from productive people, to help them when they are unemployed. I dont have a problem with that.
Now, I still maintain that the only people who will be determining eligibility are the people taking the money. Dont take it, and you arent on the list. I see that there is the potential for government abuse of this, but its a step in the right direction. However, if we didnt have the UnConstitutional programs in the first place, we wouldnt have the problem we do now.
Oh yes...we do need to dump minimum wage laws. That is pure socialism. But, you are correct, thats another thread!
Well, in the end, we both have the same assesment...dump the parasites and that ends the problem!
I like it when a plan comes together!!
[This message has been edited by Grenadier2 (edited August 26, 1999).]
Welfare should be eliminated. Private charities did a much better job of helping the truly needy, before LBJ declared war on poverty (and ran it as well as he did Viet Nam..but thats another thread). There is also the FDR factor...
Yes, FDR sold everyone a bill of goods with Social Security, but that system should be privatized. There must be some way to move to that without punishing old people, though the case could be made that some of them wanted the #$%^ program...but I suppose nearly all of the folks who did are gone by now...that was over 60 years ago. However, its my understanding that the average reciepient gets back what they have paid in to the system in about 4 years. After that its basically welfare. Thats a bad thing, and we need to change it.
Unemployment insurance is paid for by employees and their employers. And its limited in time and scope. Thats not a problem, as it comes from productive people, to help them when they are unemployed. I dont have a problem with that.
Now, I still maintain that the only people who will be determining eligibility are the people taking the money. Dont take it, and you arent on the list. I see that there is the potential for government abuse of this, but its a step in the right direction. However, if we didnt have the UnConstitutional programs in the first place, we wouldnt have the problem we do now.
Oh yes...we do need to dump minimum wage laws. That is pure socialism. But, you are correct, thats another thread!
Well, in the end, we both have the same assesment...dump the parasites and that ends the problem!
I like it when a plan comes together!!
[This message has been edited by Grenadier2 (edited August 26, 1999).]