What is up with so many people advocating an intellectual oligarchy?It is a fucking terrible idea. A great many people who vote now are so ignorant they are making the country worse by sharing their idiotic views. Why would the US do better y forcing people who care so little they don't want to vote to now influence the country's future.
That's been posted before. Curious why? Do you think that most of the voters on the right are already voting and a lot of people that would vote on the left aren't currently?
Understandable.I monitored the lefty forums on election night to get their perspective on things and came to two conclusions:
1) if they lose it's because their voters stayed home for some reason
1.1) if they didn't stay home, hillbilly ninja republicans were obstructing voters
2) if they didn't lose because their voters stayed home for some reason, it's because their candidates weren't far enough to the left.
3) (honorable mention) Debbie Wasserman Schultz
It's pretty hilarious that your post is in response to the question of "why not have everyone vote and find out what the whole country thinks?"
Because both you and I and the democrat party know that "mandatory voting" does not mean "informing every voter of the issues letting them make an informed decision for the betterment of society".
What it really means is, at the end of the day, dumping every name from the census into the D ballot box. Why do you think democrats are trying so hard to push motor-votor laws, and giving drivers licenses to illegals? This is just a more efficient way of transcribing names into D ballots.
money would become an even bigger deal because all those non-voters don't know shit and are informed by tv ads only.
People usually equate "being informed" with "agreeing with me".
^^eskimospy said:I mean do you think that you're informed? Honest question.
Heh, that could very well be true, great observation. Talk about your potential for epic backfires...
It would cost $5 billion to give everyone a $25 gift card for showing up and voting. This is a complete no brainer. The only people who would be against this are the top 1%, who happen to control pretty much all of the institutions. This is another one of those very simple planks that should be on any real candidate's platform. (Like reforming the BLS to create a real national online employment survey) But you just dont see these sort of planks, because all mainstream candidates cater to the 1%, not the people.
What is up with so many people advocating an intellectual oligarchy?
All people have a civic duty to vote AND be knowledgeable of the issues we face and what the candidates stand for. I'm fine with denying that vote if they can't do their civic duty. Give them the chance, but if they demonstrate they can't answer basic questions about government, buh-bye.Nope. Stupid people have just as much of a right to vote as anyone else and shame on you for not recognizing that.
Who gets to write the poll test?All people have a civic duty to vote AND be knowledgeable of the issues we face and what the candidates stand for. I'm fine with denying that vote if they can't do their civic duty. Give them the chance, but if they demonstrate they can't answer basic questions about government, buh-bye.
I thought a lack of a vote indicates voter apathy towards the respective candidates.
In other words, you all suck, so nobody gets my vote.
This is what I'm thinking:
Mandatory voting is just another way to get the lazy into the poll booths. Lazy usually vote for a certain party. We know which party that is. I'm guessing all the people who support this are from that party because they know exactly what's going on here.
Prizes or penalties for voting is the most crazy idea I've heard in a long time.
An abbreviated test of what is done for citizenship at the present time.Who gets to write the poll test?
People don't have a civic duty to vote. What about all the people that hate all the candidates? It is their right not to partake in a voting system they believe is corrupt. People also don't have a civic duty to be knowledgeable about issues or candidates. Sure, I'd like it if everyone was informed but if people want to live their lives without a single fuck given for any of this that's totally understandable. Hell, they probably lead much happier lives than we miserable fucks do.All people have a civic duty to vote AND be knowledgeable of the issues we face and what the candidates stand for. I'm fine with denying that vote if they can't do their civic duty. Give them the chance, but if they demonstrate they can't answer basic questions about government, buh-bye.
-snip-
"CU" what is that?
This ruling was frequently characterized as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[24] or as removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[25] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[26]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[27] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[28] The Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.[22] The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.[29] The ruling is also often incorrectly characterized as creating the idea that corporations may exercise speech rights, and that "corporations are people." Both notions are also incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations, as associations of people, may exercise many of the rights of natural persons at least since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, and has recognized that corporations are protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway was decided in 1886. First Amendment protection for corporate speech has also been recognized since at least Valentine v. Christenson (1942), and in the realm of campaign finance since at least First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978). The question in Citizens United was simply whether the First Amendment protected the rights of corporations to engage in a particular form of corporate speech.[citation needed]
Because both you and I and the democrat party know that "mandatory voting" does not mean "informing every voter of the issues letting them make an informed decision for the betterment of society". What it really means is, at the end of the day, dumping every name from the census into the D ballot box. Why do you think democrats are trying so hard to push motor-votor laws, and giving drivers licenses to illegals? This is just a more efficient way of transcribing names into D ballots.
No, anyone with any sense knows that government is our only line of defense against corporations. Yes, corporate influence over government is out of control, but without government we'd all be proper fucked. Corporations aren't going to stop raping and pillaging just because people voted against them.
Publicly held corporations aren't contributing. Political campaign spending hasn't grown anymore than it has in prior years.
Much ado about nothing.
Fern