Poll: Civic Duty

[fell8]

The above poll questions pertain to American citizens, but all are welcome to participate. Please feel free to add your thoughts and comments.

Edit: Clarify question #2 options (sorry if it affected anyone's already-cast vote)

 

[Tab]

Voting and Jury Duty should both be required and if you don't go without a legitimate reason, there should be large fines.

As for the military, I have no problem with hiring Mercs.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Jury duty is an incredible inconvenience but a necessary one. Heavy fines and/or jail time are also necessary since many people would much rather pay a small to medium fine than do their duty.

I'm scheduled for jury duty in May, and while I really don't want the inconvenience I also don't want to shirk my responsibility.

 

[Kibbo]

I think that your second poll question is poorly phrased.

Barring a total war scenario, one could build a strong argument that a draft is unjust. Even in total war, a draft should be a last resort.

That question's results will be basically meaningless.

 

[fell8]

True, there's no draft now, but if there were one (which could happen easily enough--to this day men are required to register with Selective Service when they turn 18) you would face fines and/or jail time for evading it. I think it's a quite fair and approptiate question.

 

[CycloWizard]

I would make separate questions regarding dodging the draft and jury duty. I'm guessing the responses would be quite different.

 

[fell8]

I understand where you're coming from, but I have a "secret agenda" which I'm waiting to reveal so as not to influence the opinion poll.

 

[Kibbo]

So you intentionally built a bad poll so that you could then use the bad results for rhetorical support?

Wow, you're fitting right in, arn't you?

A bit of advice, if your argument is built on crap, it'll end up smelling of crap.

Even if you are right.

 

[fell8]

Do you make a habit out of slandering things you don't even know the the whole story about? Guess I'm not the only one full of crap.

BTW, I have yet to see anyone making a valid argurment as to how the poll is flawed. Both civic duties mentioned in question 2 do carry serious penalties if shirked. The question is not about what the duty is, but about the penalty for avoiding it. If you like, you are free to specify that you support penalties for one but not the other in the thread. That is why I invited thoughts/comments, not to nit-pick semantics and lob insults (but I suppose you are free to do that as well).

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: fell8
Do you make a habit out of slandering things you don't even know the the whole story about? Guess I'm not the only one full of crap

Dude, it's the internet! Of course I'm full of crap!

I'm making a prediction about your future posts in this thread.

If I'm wrong, and this has a point that illuminates the discussion as opposed to just being a bullshit argument trap, then I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I do prefer to build real arguments, with the best facts and ideas I have available to me. Though of course I have my bad days. I even get caught occasionally.

BTW, I have yet to see anyone making a valid argurment as to how the poll is flawed. Both civic duties mentioned in question 2 do carry serious penalties if shirked. The question is not about what the duty is, but about the penalty for avoiding it.

The poll is bad because many people, myself included, might want to answer yes regarding one of those duties, but no to the other. You only give us the option to lump them together. That makes the results non-representative of the true spectrum of opinion among the subjects. And if that's the case, then the result is meaningless, and thus any argument built on the results of that poll will not be sound or cogent.

Good enough argument?

2nd edit: Oh, I think I see where this is heading. If I'm right about that, then I agree with your conclusion. I still think the poll is bad. Does your argument involve Australia?

 

[fell8]

I would have made my intended case at the begining of the thread, but like I said, I didn't want to influence opinion. What I'm trying to do is get a sense of people's feelings on these matters and then build my case referenced against that opinion pool.

To be quite honest, I thought my ruse was a little transparent to begin with.

Nope, nothing to do with Australia, I don't feel It's my place to comment on what's going on there.

 

[Kibbo]

Yeah, the only thing that threw me off was the herring of the draft. That's a red-letter issue when your country is at war. And that's why your poll is wonked.

You might as well spill it now, we're far enough down that people won't see it before voting.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: fell8
Do you make a habit out of slandering things you don't even know the the whole story about? Guess I'm not the only one full of crap.

The entire point of making a new thread is that you TELL US the whole story. Your little BS game you're playing makes this whole thing reek of being a homework assignment gone awry.

 

[Dissipate]

I think calling any of those a 'civic duty' is nothing but propagation of tyranny.

 

[datalink7]

As for the military, I have no problem with hiring Mercs.

This very sentiment lead, in large part, to the downfall of the Roman Empire.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: datalink7

As for the military, I have no problem with hiring Mercs.

This very sentiment lead, in large part, to the downfall of the Roman Empire.

It wasn't the hiring of mercs that was the root cause;that was the symptom.

 

[fell8]

You might as well spill it now, we're far enough down that people won't see it before voting.

You're right. Besides the trend is clearly developing already.

I'm making a commentary on how fundimentally flawed the American government's priorities are concerning civic duty.

As the poll shows, by far, the duty most important to people is voting. I cannot agree more. A legal system and military are mere functions of government--voting is the very root of it (at least for what I consider legitimite govenments).

Isn't it interesting how, of the three, voting (the one where the people hold domain over the government as opposed to vice-verca) is the only one that the government doesn't see as a priority? Likely most govenment officials would prefer we didn't vote at all.

Personally, I believe if any of them should carry penalties for evading, it should be voting as it is far more essential for maintaining just governance. Consider the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people". This idea has been taking quite a beating lately--from the current administration's "top-down" paradigm for the power structure (a common corporate philosophy--not surprising considering Dubya's background), to the secrecy with which they operate, even on the most mundane levels, to the fact that Dubya was never actually elected for his first term (remember, it took a Supreme Court ruling to put him in office making him effectively installed by the government--the very definition of "Autocracy"). From where I'm standing, things have been better.

I'm not outright advocating manditory voting, but if voting isn't manditory, then neither should be jury duty or the draft. Nobody should be compelled to be the instrument of a government that is becoming increasingly untrustworthy.

I yield the floor.

 

[CycloWizard]

The problem is that if someone doesn't want to vote, forcing them to do so will likely not have a positive impact on the outcome of the election. They will not be informed, as even those who vote willingly are not informed the vast majority of the time. Maybe forcing people to vote would coerce them into paying some measure of attention to who the candidates are, but I doubt it.

 

[kogase]

Well, it would be voting... but.
Well, in that case, it would be jury duty... but.
Well, those aside, the military draft is... oh no, I guess it isn't.
Bottom line? Just sit around and do nothing.

 

[fell8]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The problem is that if someone doesn't want to vote, forcing them to do so will likely not have a positive impact on the outcome of the election. They will not be informed, as even those who vote willingly are not informed the vast majority of the time. Maybe forcing people to vote would coerce them into paying some measure of attention to who the candidates are, but I doubt it.

Fair enough, but don't you think if people were required to vote, the "inconvienience" might piss them off enough to ask, "WTF is going on here?" Even if didn't immediately compel them to actually scrutinize the body that makes the rules they are expected to follow, regardless of their knowledge of those rules ("ignorance is no excuse"), it might make them realize how out-of-balance the scale currently is. Remember, currently, jury duty effects only a few, and the draft none. Voting would effect everyone. And quite honestly, I don't see how having a larger electorate could possibly be worse than what we have now.

I feel I should reiterate that I am not actually advocating manditory voting (or as I sometimes like to call it, "forced enfranchisement"), I am merely trying to point out misplaced priorities.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: fell8
Fair enough, but don't you think if people were required to vote, the "inconvienience" might piss them off enough to ask, "WTF is going on here?" Even if didn't immediately compel them to actually scrutinize the body that makes the rules they are expected to follow, regardless of their knowledge of those rules ("ignorance is no excuse"), it might make them realize how out-of-balance the scale currently is. Remember, currently, jury duty effects only a few, and the draft none. Voting would effect everyone. And quite honestly, I don't see how having a larger electorate could possibly be worse than what we have now.

I feel I should reiterate that I am not actually advocating manditory voting (or as I sometimes like to call it, "forced enfranchisement"), I am merely trying to point out misplaced priorities.

Honestly, no, I don't think it would have that effect. People have the option to vote now knowing that they might be pressed into military service based on the outcome of the election (in a roundabout way at least), but the majority of them still don't even bother to show up to vote.

Having a larger sample size essentially introduces a huge amount of random error into the polling process, assuming the people don't know who or what they're voting for.

 

[fell8]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Honestly, no, I don't think it would have that effect. People have the option to vote now knowing that they might be pressed into military service based on the outcome of the election (in a roundabout way at least), but the majority of them still don't even bother to show up to vote.

Having a larger sample size essentially introduces a huge amount of random error into the polling process, assuming the people don't know who or what they're voting for.

I think it would almost be better to have random votes than people whose only reason for voting is because they "don't want them damn faggots gittin' hitched" or because their candidate is "born-again" (ugh, theocracy, I think we're all aware of the peirls therein), or other issues which have absolutly nothing to do with actual governance.

Getting back to the point I was trying to make, if people understood the importance of voting, weighed against the draft or jury duty (duties that many seem to think are important enough to merit fines/jail), they might take the whole thing a little more seriously.

Most people who take part in jury duty, despite the fact they'd rather not be there, do take it seriously. They pay attention to the case. They try to make a fair and informed decision. Likewise, people who are drafted take that seriously. They pay attention and genuinely try to learn the skills being taught. They obey the orders given them, even in the face of grave peril, and try to carry them out to the best of their ability. They do this, not because of fear of court martial (indeed, the stockade is far safer and more comfortable than the battlefield), but because they think what they are doing is important, because they believe they are protecting their country, and more importantly, the people of that country. They make great sacrifice for a greater good.

I believe if people understood that voting was not just as important, but far more important than jury duty or military service, they would give it the attention it deserves. They would actually bother to learn something about the candidates, and they would at least attempt to make an informed decision.

As it is, voting to many people is either a popularity contest or something only "old people and losers" do.

I believe this can change, over time. That is why I started this thread, to give people a little more perspective to voting's scope and importance. When viewed against other civic duties that are deemed important enough to be fined and/or jailed for shirking, they will realize that voting, the absolutly most important civic duty there is, should be undertaken, and done so responsibly.

For those who who understand what I'm saying and have been moved by my words, I urge you to do what I have attempted to do here. Spread the word.

 

[Cerb]

Jury Duty is far more important than voting.
If I am faced with a set of candidates that I can't really support, why should I feel compelled to vote? A lesser evil is still :evil: (but with politicians, usually not as cute as emoticons).

Likewise, why should I be compelled to any form of military service, if I do not support what they do?

I think threat of jail time is proper for evading jury duty. It's very ironic justice.
Since I disagree with any non-consensual military service, I don't think so for a draft.

Edit: I had a bit more, but I think CycloWizard took care of it.

 

[daveshel]

In the New Order, our civic duty is to SPEND.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: fell8
I think it would almost be better to have random votes than people whose only reason for voting is because they "don't want them damn faggots gittin' hitched" or because their candidate is "born-again" (ugh, theocracy, I think we're all aware of the peirls therein), or other issues which have absolutly nothing to do with actual governance.

Ah, and now your true, bigoted self is made known to everyone. Let me clue you in on a little secret - 'random' does not mean 'we only count the votes that will help swing the election in my favor.' Your whole 'point' of your ridiculous poll is a feeble attempt to get out the vote of people, as long as they support your agenda. What a joke.