Is It Time To Reconsider Voting Rights Yet?

[Upchurch]

You know, I've often considered career surgeons to part of the problem. If I'm going to put my life in someone's hands, the last thing I want is to trust the establishment. I want someone who has never performed surgery before. Someone who has absolutely no idea what they're doing like that is the lesser evil because knowledge and experience are the greater evils.

 

[theprestige]

Is that bad?

That's the question. If you don't have an answer, maybe your proposal is premature.

 

[Darat]

We (including myself) do tend to think "our" democracy i.e. non-universal suffrage but close to universal suffrage for all "adults" is the best we could have, but that is just an assumption we have. Could we not come up with a "better" system. Of course I bet we can't even agree on what would be the definition of the criteria of "better"!

 

[phiwum]

The very fact of the internal, almost civil war-like battle against religious and fundamentalist nuttery, which has fomented schisms regarding such societal issues as abortion, guns, recreational drugs and sexual identity, points to a still widespread immaturity in the populace.

No, it points to the fact that Oklahoma is not much like Massachusetts, which is not much like Idaho and so on.

It's a big nation, and quite varied politically. Despite the quite varied backgrounds of the EU, for instance, politically they are less disparate. This does not imply immaturity so much as differences.

 

[LSSBB]

That would defeat the purpose of the Electoral College, which is to represent the collective interest of the State as a sovereign member of the Union. The Electors are supposed to consider the will of the people of their State, but also the good of the State as a whole, when casting their vote. Assigning Electors proportional to the popular vote in their State effectively nullifies the Elector's role in voting the interests of the State. This may be a good thing--clearly many people think it is a good thing. But that's the thing you're really proposing.

The electoral college has been hijacked by the parties and thus is not really meeting the intent of the founders. Maybe if we just take away partisan control of the selection of electors...

 

[Varanid]

Plenty of smart, educated people thought he was the lesser evil, which is frightening in and of itself: if they can be fooled or blinded so, where's the bulwark against tyranny?

Look, I'm sure that there were a handful of rational, intellectual folks that honestly thought he was the better option. But all 428 of them didn't amount to squat.

Just because someone has a college degree does not mean they're educated.

 

[dudalb]

That would defeat the purpose of the Electoral College, which is to represent the collective interest of the State as a sovereign member of the Union. The Electors are supposed to consider the will of the people of their State, but also the good of the State as a whole, when casting their vote. Assigning Electors proportional to the popular vote in their State effectively nullifies the Elector's role in voting the interests of the State. This may be a good thing--clearly many people think it is a good thing. But that's the thing you're really proposing.

That might have been the intent of the Electorial College,but the reality has turned out to be something different.
Time to get real;the Electorial College is not working the way it was supposed to. The electorials are just rubber stamps for whoever won their state.
And forgive me if I suspect that your defense of the EC would be much weaker if it had been two Democrats who were elected despite losing the popular vote.

 

[dudalb]

Look, I'm sure that there were a handful of rational, intellectual folks that honestly thought he was the better option. But all 428 of them didn't amount to squat.

Just because someone has a college degree does not mean they're educated.

THIS.
I have known PHD's I would not trust to take my dog out for a walk, and people with GED's who I have great confidence in.

 

[phiwum]

Yeah back in the day I thought about giving people privileges based on how informed or whatever they were, until the obvious problems of this dawned on me.



Yes but certainly not to the scale that it is now. It's become very difficult even for us here to sift through all the nonsense in order to get to the truth of the matter. The proliferation of social media and the fact that they are often used as a source by the regular media doesn't help at all.

This might be a real issue. Bias doesn't respect boundaries any more.

The system itself has been made more pliable to this sort of thing, though. The Senate, the President and the House are all elected, and answer to the same electors, where before it was only the latter.

This is a change that was made in favor of greater democracy. I'm not yet ready to give up on that principle. The current climate certainly tests this principle. There is no doubt that many voters are simply ignorant, and this is a problem. There is also no doubt that Trump plays them like a fish, and this is very troubling.

But in the end, we must be committed to self rule.

 

[rdwight]

Not sure what specific changes would actually make a difference. And I doubt most really know what change they want beyond their guy winning instead of the 'other guy'.

I think the system has evolved well enough over time, including women and minorities into the voting mix. Adding some kind of educational foundation to vote is just a flawed idea. What kind of test would be sufficient? What questions? What baseline would be necessary to vote? It's a silly idea in this day in age where there is compulsory education for children and we as a nation are probably better educated than at any point in history.

If you think people are voting incorrectly, well you should probably put more effort into changing that. If half the effort that is being used in the post election was used before the election, I couldn't imagine that the outcome would remain the same.

The real problem I think people have is the amount of power the President has in general. No other time in history did the President have the ability to literally destroy life as we know it on this planet. The founding fathers couldn't have imagined such a scenario when they formed the position, and all the checks and balances we have don't really account for it.

 

[theprestige]

We (including myself) do tend to think "our" democracy i.e. non-universal suffrage but close to universal suffrage for all "adults" is the best we could have, but that is just an assumption we have. Could we not come up with a "better" system. Of course I bet we can't even agree on what would be the definition of the criteria of "better"!

Apparently fascism (like communism) was originally seen as a natural evolution of--and improvement over--liberal democracy. This was before the NSDAP ruined it for everybody with their racism and violent expansionism, of course.

So maybe it's time to reclaim fascism? Nationalizing of all major industry. Overcoming class differences by celebrating national unity. Encouraging assimilation of immigrants. Thanks to Hitler, fascism was never really given a chance. We know how communism turned out, but we should consider giving fascism another try.

 

[phiwum]

Now, had she done that, it would be an immense scandal, not only for her, but also for many folks at Foggy Bottom. But what we've seen just isn't that. Yes, classified info should not be sent to any public server - and yes, it's known that people mess up on what is classified, every now and then. But what we know now isn't a massive scandal.

and yet again, it's amusing that people want to whine about Clinton's emails, when Toupee Fiasco is using a years-old Android phone in the White House.

Actually, is it clear that he's still doing so, aside from receiving voicemails from friends?

Of all his sins, this one is not so clear to me. Citations welcome.

 

[theprestige]

That might have been the intent of the Electorial College,but the reality has turned out to be something different.
Time to get real;the Electorial College is not working the way it was supposed to. The electorials are just rubber stamps for whoever won their state.

They're called electors. And the role of the electors in each state is determined by the citizens of that state. If the citizens of a state don't like the way their electors behave, they have the right and the authority to change their elector's charter. Some states have.

But this more a problem of people misunderstanding what their electors do, rather than their electors doing anything unintended in the original design.

And forgive me if I suspect that your defense of the EC would be much weaker if it had been two Democrats who were elected despite losing the popular vote.

No, I won't forgive you. This is gratuitously personalizing, and openly offensive. Please withdraw it.

 

[dudalb]

Apparently fascism (like communism) was originally seen as a natural evolution of--and improvement over--liberal democracy. This was before the NSDAP ruined it for everybody with their racism and violent expansionism, of course.

So maybe it's time to reclaim fascism? Nationalizing of all major industry. Overcoming class differences by celebrating national unity. Encouraging assimilation of immigrants. Thanks to Hitler, fascism was never really given a chance. We know how communism turned out, but we should consider giving fascism another try.

I hope you being ironic with that last sentence.

 

[Mumbles]

Pppttt...

So, millions of people will lose access to healthcare.

It's what folks voted for. Let them suffer the consequences of their actions, yet again. Maybe this time they'll learn. I have sympathy for folks that voted for Clinton, but none at all for folks that voted for Minute Maid Mao.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Apparently fascism (like communism) was originally seen as a natural evolution of--and improvement over--liberal democracy. This was before the NSDAP ruined it for everybody with their racism and violent expansionism, of course.

So maybe it's time to reclaim fascism? Nationalizing of all major industry. Overcoming class differences by celebrating national unity. Encouraging assimilation of immigrants. Thanks to Hitler, fascism was never really given a chance. We know how communism turned out, but we should consider giving fascism another try.

Well, finish your Trump experiment first, OK?

Hans

 

[Belz...]

I didn't agree with that.

Of course not. Trying to pin you down on an opinion or claim is like trying to catch an oily eel with chopsticks.

The fact that she's a thoroughly establishment player is. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. And that's what I now know you haven't considered when it comes to the possibility that maybe Trump was the lesser evil.

That doesn't follow at all. I know she was seen as establishment, but that doesn't change anything about what I said.

 

[theprestige]

I hope you being ironic with that last sentence.

Not at all. I think that any serious debate about replacing democracy with something better must include a review of fascism. Not the psychotic version implemented by Adolf Hitler. The ideals put forth by Mussolini and others.

Democracy has an ideal form, and yet it fails quite often in implementation. Why should you be so quick to judge fascism based on its failures, when it had so little chance to succeed, and was so quickly overshadowed by the NSDAP?

Some systems are clearly designed to benefit the few, at the expense of the many. Oligarchies and Kleptocracies, for example. Other systems only work well for the many in certain times and places--Feudalism, for example. Feudalism wasn't great, but given the constraints on pre-industrial societies, it was probably pretty close to optimal.

Other systems, at least in theory, are clearly designed to benefit the many. Various forms of democracy, for example. Also communism, and fascism. Democracy is obviously flawed in practice. For every libertarian ranting about their freedoms, there is a statist insisting that we must have an authoritarian override on the will of the people, for the greater good.

Fascism, in its essence, simply provides a stronger form of that authoritarian override. At the same time, it also seeks to strengthen popular unity, thus reducing the need to exercise the authoritarian override.

If America, for example, were united against institutional racism, against poverty, against sexism; if America were united against military adventurism and environmental exploitation; if in America these harmful tendencies were purged; if American industry were regulated by the government to act in concert with the ideals of the united citizenry--would this not be a better America?

What's more important? That everybody be free? Or that everybody be well?

 

[theprestige]

Well, finish your Trump experiment first, OK?

I'm game if you are, but if we're going to improve upon democracy, why wait? There's no reason to sit through four whole years (or more!) of President Trump, if we're ready to go with something better.

 

[Travis]

Clearly the best solution is for every state to send two children to fight to the death in a giant arena. Those that win get to vote on everyone's behalf. Unless they vote for the person I don't like....in which case screw that system.