How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth? - Page 3

xTYBALTx · 11-25-2007, 02:44 AM

People aren't able to understand the political choices before them - they must be guided by the benevolent hand of the state!

**MDFubar** · 11-25-2007, 12:23 PM

LOL, Kinda of a funny argument to read but also extremely sad....... People have given thier lives to protect our way of life, like it or not, through out history. The first government we had failed miserably and we now have this........A REPUBLIC modeled after Rome. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! If we where then everyone would vote on every thing, that is a true demoracy. We are a REPUBLIC, we elect people to represent our interests(have to laugh at that) and make the appropriate decisions for the general public. That being said, you(IMO) do not have the right to vote, you have the responsiblilty to vote. Our country was designed with safety mechanisims to stop it from becoming what it has. The president has no real power if he does not control the Senate or Congress.....or both.
You obligation to vote has been set forth so that YOU can help decide what we do. So many people say that thier vote doesn't count, well look around and ask how many people vote. Until the voter turn-out is up to about 98%, the few will alwsy govern the many.
As for the convicted felon law, designed to keep criminals from electing criminals(LMFAO), there has been legislation to allow convicted felons the right to vote....also ILLEGAL Imigrants. Does everyone get a chance to vote on this..........NO! We are a republice. Say the pledge of allegiance......" I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,". Not the democracy.
If you don't vote and you are willing to give up that obligation, then do not complain about the things that you do not agree with in the government. One day, thru a lack of voting and interest in our government, you may not have freedom of speech or many other rights. They are changing them now and calling it added security. The more secure you are, the less rights of freedom you have.
Remember that in our constitution we have the right to bear arms, and the Declaration of Independence tells us that if our Government fails the people........well read the following(I don't even think they teach this in school anymore)

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Off my soap box and now I need a drink.........

Fubar

**CingularDuality** · 11-25-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Flip the question on its head: How much would you do to get your right back again? Many are not allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice because of excessively onerous ballot access laws. Would you contribute to organizations devoted to fighting those laws?

http://www.ballot-access.org/

It may be un-libertarian of me, but I kinda like the fact that convicted felons don't get to vote...

xTYBALTx · 11-25-2007, 12:48 PM

I don't think it's libertarian one way or the other, but why would you think that?

Some nations go to great pains to ensure that even imprisoned persons get to vote - I don't understand why we don't do the same thing.

**CingularDuality** · 11-25-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

I don't think it's libertarian one way or the other, but why would you think that?

Some nations go to great pains to ensure that even imprisoned persons get to vote - I don't understand why we don't do the same thing.

Because I think that our society has decided upon certain rules, and when one chooses to live outside of those rules, he has decided to live outside of our society. If one chooses to live outside society, why would she get to decide how that society is ruled?

ScratchMonkey · 11-25-2007, 01:21 PM

Our society is full of busy-bodies who want to micro-manage others, and hence a lot of those felons are people minding their own business. (Think of all the folks in prison for MJ possession.)

The more people who vote, the less any given vote has any effect. Simple math, there.

Voting should be used to establish near-unanimous use of government, not a technical majority of the few who like to play that game and spend all their time doing so. Government isn't a panacea that can be used to solve every problem, but many want it to be, and think that by voting a problem away, that somehow actually solves it.

Government is different from all other human endeavor in that it uses violent compulsion, not voluntary cooperation, to achieve its end. We should severely restrict what it's used for, and to that end we should only allow hypermajorities to enable its use.

How about this: Recognize every voter that doesn't show up as an implied "nay" refusing the passage of a law, or a vote for "none of the above" when electing representatives (which effectively becomes a "nay" for all votes that representative would have been involved in). Then I could just stay home and do my own job and my wishes would be carried out.

**CingularDuality** · 11-25-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Our society is full of busy-bodies who want to micro-manage others, and hence a lot of those felons are people minding their own business. (Think of all the folks in prison for MJ possession.)

A wholly separate issue...

xTYBALTx · 11-25-2007, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Because I think that our society has decided upon certain rules, and when one chooses to live outside of those rules, he has decided to live outside of our society. If one chooses to live outside society, why would she get to decide how that society is ruled?

Tell me why people are allowed back into society after being convicted of all non-life-term/death penalty felonies then?

**Gambit7** · 11-25-2007, 08:58 PM

Personally, I think everyone felon or not should be given the right to vote. If the government really wanted to, they could convict EVERY citizen in the US on some trumped-up felony charge (dont kid yourself, everyone is a felon at some point in their life - especially politicians) and then strip them of their right to vote.

You cant have these "grey areas" where someone on death row cant vote, but neither can the guy who left a roach in his ashtray, but all the while a billion dollar money-launderer can.

Easiest way to solve this dilemma is to give the right to vote to ALL citizens, regardless of an arbitrary "moral status."

We've got enough cherry-picking of voters already... look who we've got as president and you'll see. (he's carried 2 terms based largely on cherry-picked votes)

p.s.
you see how much most of us value our vote in this thread... might as well give it to the scum of the earth. Better yet! How 'bout we get to PROXY our vote to a convict for a fee! Like, a brand new Wacom Pen Tablet to give my vote to Charles Manson.

**CingularDuality** · 11-25-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Tell me why people are allowed back into society after being convicted of all non-life-term/death penalty felonies then?

Because that's what we, as a society, have decided. That felons may rejoin society after completing their punishment, but that they may never have a hand in molding society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gambit7

Easiest way to solve this dilemma is to give the right to vote to ALL citizens, regardless of an arbitrary "moral status."

It's certainly not arbitrary. It's based on the laws of our society. If there are problems with that system, it's certainly a separate problem that needs to be addressed.

xTYBALTx · 11-25-2007, 09:14 PM

So you're saying, "It's okay because it's the law."

**CingularDuality** · 11-25-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

So you're saying, "It's okay because it's the law."

No, I'm saying it's the law because you and I have chosen it to be the law.

ednos · 11-26-2007, 01:28 AM

I didn't choose it. Someone else did. If I don't like the law, I have to leave and find somewhere else to go. This is the reason I want government to be more localized, giving more power to the towns and counties and perhaps the states, although that's still pretty high up the detachment ladder.

**sordavie** · 11-26-2007, 01:43 AM

Isn't it a bit strange to say that you and I chose something to be the law even though it would be the law even if we didn't exist (or weren't citizens, or were convicted felons, or didn't vote). If we chose something, then in some sense if we hadn't chosen it, then it wouldn't be so.

I think what you want to say is that the American public chose the law. If the American public had not chosen the law, then it wouldn't be a law. That seems to be roughly what you're after. But that doesn't mean that you and I chose the law, even if we are members of the American public. That's an example of what's called, in linguistics, a nondistributive predicate. It's a predicate that applies to a group or collection but does not apply to members of that group or collection, i.e. it doesn't distribute down to the parts.

An easier one to get is 'surrounds the building' as in the sentence 'the students surrounded the dining hall'. It's true that the students, together, surrounded the dining hall, but it's false that any particular student in that group surrounded the dining hall (that would have to be one humongous student or a tiny dining hall).

A distributive predicate is one that "distributes" down to the members of or things that compose the subject. For instance, 'are carrying pencils' as in 'the students are carrying pencils'. In an ordinary context (e.g. where there's no huge pencil that takes 5 students working together to carry), this says that each student is carrying some pencil or pencils.

I don't think any one of us on this forum had any choice in what laws are enacted in the US. You might think otherwise but only if you made the mistake of taking a nondistributive predicate to be a distributive one. The predicate in 'the American public chose to enact a law' is to be taken nondistributively. The sentence is false if taken distributively.

Understanding this bit of grammar is one big key to understanding why our votes are worth very little. Clear grammar engenders clear thinking, which in turn engenders understanding and good reasoning. The whole corrupt voting system reason is a nonsequiter. That's not the reason why your votes are worth very little. I suspect that anyone who reasons that their vote is worth a lot makes some kind of fallacy regarding distributive and nondistributive predicates in their reasoning. To see this, consider who elects the president. It's the American people who elect the president--taken nondistributively! You don't elect the president, even if you voted for the one who gets elected.

**CingularDuality** · 11-26-2007, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

I think what you want to say is that the American public chose the law.

Nope, I wanted to say exactly what I said. And I believe that it's just as correct as your suggestion. I did mean to have fun with the implication that 'you' might mean Tybalt specifically, but that's not what I really meant. I meant 'you' to be an "indefinitely specified person", which collectively, as you pointed out, decides what laws we have. And your implications that a single citizen can not change the laws is horribly disingenuous. We have seen individuals time after time get laws added, changed and removed. There's nothing to say that you, sordavie, can't do that if you want to.

11-25-2007, 02:44 AM	#31 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,844	Re: How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth? People aren't able to understand the political choices before them - they must be guided by the benevolent hand of the state! __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

11-25-2007, 12:23 PM	#32 (permalink)
MDFubar Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: New Castle, DE Age: 40 Posts: 1,750	Re: How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth? LOL, Kinda of a funny argument to read but also extremely sad....... People have given thier lives to protect our way of life, like it or not, through out history. The first government we had failed miserably and we now have this........A REPUBLIC modeled after Rome. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! If we where then everyone would vote on every thing, that is a true demoracy. We are a REPUBLIC, we elect people to represent our interests(have to laugh at that) and make the appropriate decisions for the general public. That being said, you(IMO) do not have the right to vote, you have the responsiblilty to vote. Our country was designed with safety mechanisims to stop it from becoming what it has. The president has no real power if he does not control the Senate or Congress.....or both. You obligation to vote has been set forth so that YOU can help decide what we do. So many people say that thier vote doesn't count, well look around and ask how many people vote. Until the voter turn-out is up to about 98%, the few will alwsy govern the many. As for the convicted felon law, designed to keep criminals from electing criminals(LMFAO), there has been legislation to allow convicted felons the right to vote....also ILLEGAL Imigrants. Does everyone get a chance to vote on this..........NO! We are a republice. Say the pledge of allegiance......" I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,". Not the democracy. If you don't vote and you are willing to give up that obligation, then do not complain about the things that you do not agree with in the government. One day, thru a lack of voting and interest in our government, you may not have freedom of speech or many other rights. They are changing them now and calling it added security. The more secure you are, the less rights of freedom you have. Remember that in our constitution we have the right to bear arms, and the Declaration of Independence tells us that if our Government fails the people........well read the following(I don't even think they teach this in school anymore) That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security Off my soap box and now I need a drink......... Fubar __________________ "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - General George Patton Jr Acknowledge your teammates' Outstanding and Distinguished efforts: Submit a nomination NEW TO TG START HERE SUPPORTING MEMBERSHIP ADMIN LIST TG-21ST DIVISION**

11-25-2007, 12:48 PM	#34 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,844	Re: How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth? I don't think it's libertarian one way or the other, but why would you think that? Some nations go to great pains to ensure that even imprisoned persons get to vote - I don't understand why we don't do the same thing. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

11-25-2007, 01:21 PM	#36 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 4,240	Re: How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth? Our society is full of busy-bodies who want to micro-manage others, and hence a lot of those felons are people minding their own business. (Think of all the folks in prison for MJ possession.) The more people who vote, the less any given vote has any effect. Simple math, there. Voting should be used to establish near-unanimous use of government, not a technical majority of the few who like to play that game and spend all their time doing so. Government isn't a panacea that can be used to solve every problem, but many want it to be, and think that by voting a problem away, that somehow actually solves it. Government is different from all other human endeavor in that it uses violent compulsion, not voluntary cooperation, to achieve its end. We should severely restrict what it's used for, and to that end we should only allow hypermajorities to enable its use. How about this: Recognize every voter that doesn't show up as an implied "nay" refusing the passage of a law, or a vote for "none of the above" when electing representatives (which effectively becomes a "nay" for all votes that representative would have been involved in). Then I could just stay home and do my own job and my wishes would be carried out.

11-25-2007, 08:58 PM	#39 (permalink)
Gambit7 Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Hollywood, FL Age: 32 Posts: 2,170	Re: How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth? Personally, I think everyone felon or not should be given the right to vote. If the government really wanted to, they could convict EVERY citizen in the US on some trumped-up felony charge (dont kid yourself, everyone is a felon at some point in their life - especially politicians) and then strip them of their right to vote. You cant have these "grey areas" where someone on death row cant vote, but neither can the guy who left a roach in his ashtray, but all the while a billion dollar money-launderer can. Easiest way to solve this dilemma is to give the right to vote to ALL citizens, regardless of an arbitrary "moral status." We've got enough cherry-picking of voters already... look who we've got as president and you'll see. (he's carried 2 terms based largely on cherry-picked votes) p.s. you see how much most of us value our vote in this thread... might as well give it to the scum of the earth. Better yet! How 'bout we get to PROXY our vote to a convict for a fee! Like, a brand new Wacom Pen Tablet to give my vote to Charles Manson. __________________

11-25-2007, 09:14 PM	#41 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,844	Re: How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth? So you're saying, "It's okay because it's the law." __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

11-26-2007, 01:28 AM	#43 (permalink)
ednos Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 3,773	Re: How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth? I didn't choose it. Someone else did. If I don't like the law, I have to leave and find somewhere else to go. This is the reason I want government to be more localized, giving more power to the towns and counties and perhaps the states, although that's still pretty high up the detachment ladder. __________________ The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~ Magna Centipede

11-26-2007, 01:43 AM	#44 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 2,087	Re: How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth? Isn't it a bit strange to say that you and I chose something to be the law even though it would be the law even if we didn't exist (or weren't citizens, or were convicted felons, or didn't vote). If we chose something, then in some sense if we hadn't chosen it, then it wouldn't be so. I think what you want to say is that the American public chose the law. If the American public had not chosen the law, then it wouldn't be a law. That seems to be roughly what you're after. But that doesn't mean that you and I chose the law, even if we are members of the American public. That's an example of what's called, in linguistics, a nondistributive predicate. It's a predicate that applies to a group or collection but does not apply to members of that group or collection, i.e. it doesn't distribute down to the parts. An easier one to get is 'surrounds the building' as in the sentence 'the students surrounded the dining hall'. It's true that the students, together, surrounded the dining hall, but it's false that any particular student in that group surrounded the dining hall (that would have to be one humongous student or a tiny dining hall). A distributive predicate is one that "distributes" down to the members of or things that compose the subject. For instance, 'are carrying pencils' as in 'the students are carrying pencils'. In an ordinary context (e.g. where there's no huge pencil that takes 5 students working together to carry), this says that each student is carrying some pencil or pencils. I don't think any one of us on this forum had any choice in what laws are enacted in the US. You might think otherwise but only if you made the mistake of taking a nondistributive predicate to be a distributive one. The predicate in 'the American public chose to enact a law' is to be taken nondistributively. The sentence is false if taken distributively. Understanding this bit of grammar is one big key to understanding why our votes are worth very little. Clear grammar engenders clear thinking, which in turn engenders understanding and good reasoning. The whole corrupt voting system reason is a nonsequiter. That's not the reason why your votes are worth very little. I suspect that anyone who reasons that their vote is worth a lot makes some kind of fallacy regarding distributive and nondistributive predicates in their reasoning. To see this, consider who elects the president. It's the American people who elect the president--taken nondistributively! You don't elect the president, even if you voted for the one who gets elected. __________________ Last edited by sordavie; 11-26-2007 at 02:36 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links