Who's gonna win?

[Diogenes]

Maybe those in the wagon don't want to be pulled.

A theory belied by the fact that they have their hand out for government dollars.

Many do, some don't. But "being pulled" doesn't just mean getting fed, it also means going in a direction they may have no interest in.

No, it means getting fed, housed, medically cared for, etc, but as for them not liking the direction, if they aren't paying any of the bills, I don't give a f**k if they want to go that direction or not.

Presuming to make me their slave grants me the right to throw off their yoke.

So if you reduce the vote to those who pay for government, why should those who are not paying accept the rule of this government they don't have a say in?

Why on earth would anyone have to explain this to you? You don't get to chose whether or not you are going to participate in a government, there is no such thing as free range humans, you WILL be regarded as part of whatever government chooses to claim you, and you WILL obey it or it will punish you, maybe unto death.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the basics of human existence works. Governments always form in groups of humans. Usually it starts with the most aggressive or meanest dude in the group, but the principle remains that SOMEONE is going to be the Chief, and everybody else is going to be the Indians.

You should be thankful that the possibility that someone who isn't paying might just be left alone. Historically, the government FORCED everyone to pay, and nobody got left alone. It is a testament to the prosperity of this nation that we could have reached a condition in which some people can become a permanent welfare class, but make no mistake, it is a very UNNATURAL condition.

[Diogenes]

Whether paying a poll tax is a good demonstration of being reponsible enough I don't know. I would also argue that some minimum level of safety net is not charity, but serves the interests of those paying.

An "insurance policy" against bad luck or hardship is perfectly reasonable. What is NOT reasonable is mulitgenerational parasites sucking on the taxpayers tit.

That's what we have now.

[Diogenes]

Why not military service and/or property owner?

Property owner had always been a historical requirement for the voting franchise. The Franchise slowly evolved to lesser standards, and I think we have been the worse for it as the standards have been lowered.

[Diogenes]

The key concept is to satisfy an objective indicator of successful adult behavior without being a net drain on the society.

Yes, fascism and militarism go well together. Sounds like Heinlein. The trouble is, all the people you want to disenfranchise will within a year or so rise up, kill their oppressors and take what they convince themselves belongs to them.

You'll all be dead.

Rather than invent a class system, you'd be far more effective thinking on how to motivate those who are not motivated. Socialism is great at de-motivating people. All you really need to do is take away the benefits and force people to work. It's not that easy, but it's a sight easier that convincing people to turn over their right to vote--something you have absolutely no hope of ever accomplishing outside a complete economic collapse, abandonment of democracy and the rise of an authoritarian regime.

LBJ's plan was to secure as permanent, the votes of the people for whom he created the Welfare system. They consistently vote for the people who will keep other people's money flowing to them. You aren't going to motivate them to do anything else.

[Teahive]

I don't like electronic voting machines. Too easy to cheat. Here in my state we had been using paper ballots which were read electronically, but they are still hand countable, so they still retain the possibility of discovering vote fraud.

It's a good system, and we should continue using it.

By the way, I completely agree with that. Of any kind of vote fraud, hacking voting machines has such a high reward/risk ratio that it seems almost naive to think it's not already taking place.

[Teahive]

Rather than invent a class system, you'd be far more effective thinking on how to motivate those who are not motivated. Socialism is great at de-motivating people. All you really need to do is take away the benefits and force people to work.

Someone who is forced to work a shitty job with poor pay won't be particularly motivated. You don't need socialism for that, stupid capitalists are great demotivators, too.

In Starship Troopers, Heinlein suggested a standard of franchise that any man of discipline and determination could satisfy. In his example completing a term of government service, not just military. So those with the substance to be more than a nuisance on society have the means of having a voice in government. At the same time, such employees of the government were not entitled to vote while still drawing that paycheck. So no voting a larger paycheck for yourself.

A rather interesting approach. I think the point that there is a choice of service beyond military is particularly important.

Presuming to make me their slave grants me the right to throw off their yoke.

And what I'm saying is that this works the other way, too. When large parts of the population are faced with a government that rules over them but does nothing for them, they will eventually push back. I perfectly understand how governments impose their power. That power is not limitless.

[paperburn1]

An over simplified view of heinlin, aka starship trooper. Anyone could become a citizen just had to pay into the system before you could have a vote. So anyone that could put other before their own interests had a right tosay what is correct in society views. Those who choose not to participate then had no say in the government. But still could benefit from the overall contributions of citizens

What he said!

[choff]

I don't like electronic voting machines. Too easy to cheat. Here in my state we had been using paper ballots which were read electronically, but they are still hand countable, so they still retain the possibility of discovering vote fraud.

It's a good system, and we should continue using it.

By the way, I completely agree with that. Of any kind of vote fraud, hacking voting machines has such a high reward/risk ratio that it seems almost naive to think it's not already taking place.

In my country we have paper ballots and what are called scrutineers during ballot counting. Each candidate can have one scrutineer at the ballot counting after polls close, essentially a witness that the vote is counted fairly.
The problem is we have people pushing for electronic polling machines, and that was the case in local municipal elections, wrong direction.
Our federal elections can run from a minimum of 1 month to a max of 3. Mostly they run 2 months, too little and the opposition will cry foul, more than 2 and all the politicians will loose support. We can't stand having to look at our politicians for very long.

[Diogenes]

Rather than invent a class system, you'd be far more effective thinking on how to motivate those who are not motivated. Socialism is great at de-motivating people. All you really need to do is take away the benefits and force people to work.

Someone who is forced to work a shitty job with poor pay won't be particularly motivated. You don't need socialism for that, stupid capitalists are great demotivators, too.

This thinking overlooks the fact that people's pay is determined by the demand for their services. American Clothing manufacturers cannot compete against foreign manufacturers, and as a result they go out of business. (for example.)

If people don't think they are paid enough, they need to figure out ways to get paid more. If no such way exists within their determination or skill set, then they they are just sh*t out of luck. Life ain't fair, and attempts to force it to be fair usually makes it even more unfair.

That's what socialism is. It doesn't work, and it cannot work because it is completely contrary to human nature.

In Starship Troopers, Heinlein suggested a standard of franchise that any man of discipline and determination could satisfy. In his example completing a term of government service, not just military. So those with the substance to be more than a nuisance on society have the means of having a voice in government. At the same time, such employees of the government were not entitled to vote while still drawing that paycheck. So no voting a larger paycheck for yourself.

A rather interesting approach. I think the point that there is a choice of service beyond military is particularly important.

I regard very little in the way of service beyond the Military as achieving enough merit to be worthy of the franchise. Certainly being a government bureaucrat should in no way be comparable to the risk of loss every service man faces when they sign on.

Presuming to make me their slave grants me the right to throw off their yoke.

And what I'm saying is that this works the other way, too. When large parts of the population are faced with a government that rules over them but does nothing for them, they will eventually push back.

The government is only supposed to do ONE thing for them; Protect their rights. That's it. It isn't supposed to feed them, it isn't supposed to entertain them, it isn't supposed to hold their hand and baby them their whole lives, it is only supposed to protect their rights and their freedoms so that they can succeed or fail on their own.

Those who want more need to be beaten back.

I perfectly understand how governments impose their power. That power is not limitless.

It is as close as makes no difference. The government can end the life of anyone who offends it, so you might say it has infinite influence on us as individuals. For this reason, we need to throw as many chains on it's behavior as are practical to tolerate, but which will still allow for a functional government.

[Teahive]

This thinking [...]

... has little to do with what I wrote.

I regard very little in the way of service beyond the Military as achieving enough merit to be worthy of the franchise. Certainly being a government bureaucrat should in no way be comparable to the risk of loss every service man faces when they sign on.

It's not a good idea to limit the franchise to just those who are military minded and of sufficient physical ability. And while the risk is clearly not comparable, I don't think such level of risk should pose the barrier of entry.

The government is only supposed to do ONE thing for them; Protect their rights. That's it. It isn't supposed to feed them, it isn't supposed to entertain them, it isn't supposed to hold their hand and baby them their whole lives, it is only supposed to protect their rights and their freedoms so that they can succeed or fail on their own.

Right. And I'm talking about a case where it doesn't protect those rights and freedoms for a large part of the population. And you will certainly find disagreement on what those rights and freedoms should be.

[GIThruster]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/194765563400 ... p=obinsite

[ScottL]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/194765563400 ... p=obinsite

My big prediction, Obama win in a relatively close election. I'm pretty sure Obama has the lock on Ohio since Romney's Chrysler gaffe and being a native Ohioan, all I'm hearing is a lot of rage over his commenting on anything auto related. Florida on the other hand is a tough one, but it appears they're giving out absentee ballots after the failed decrease in early voting schedule so that looks like it is going to bite Republican's chances in the ass a bit. Not saying it swings Florida one way or the other, but it definitely energized the liberal voters a bit. Iowa and Wisconsin are leaning blue and combined with a strong potential of getting Ohio, I'd say that's a lock for Obama, but that is of course my arm-chair analysis.

[seedload]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/194765563400 ... p=obinsite

Dick Morris' predictions have never impressed me. I do think that Dems are being over sampled in the polls, but we shall see by how much and whether it has an affect.

[Diogenes]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/194765563400 ... p=obinsite

My big prediction, Obama win in a relatively close election. I'm pretty sure Obama has the lock on Ohio since Romney's Chrysler gaffe and being a native Ohioan, all I'm hearing is a lot of rage over his commenting on anything auto related. Florida on the other hand is a tough one, but it appears they're giving out absentee ballots after the failed decrease in early voting schedule so that looks like it is going to bite Republican's chances in the ass a bit. Not saying it swings Florida one way or the other, but it definitely energized the liberal voters a bit. Iowa and Wisconsin are leaning blue and combined with a strong potential of getting Ohio, I'd say that's a lock for Obama, but that is of course my arm-chair analysis.

Re-electing Obama is like the Titanic backing up and hitting the Iceberg a second time.

[ScottL]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/194765563400 ... p=obinsite

My big prediction, Obama win in a relatively close election. I'm pretty sure Obama has the lock on Ohio since Romney's Chrysler gaffe and being a native Ohioan, all I'm hearing is a lot of rage over his commenting on anything auto related. Florida on the other hand is a tough one, but it appears they're giving out absentee ballots after the failed decrease in early voting schedule so that looks like it is going to bite Republican's chances in the ass a bit. Not saying it swings Florida one way or the other, but it definitely energized the liberal voters a bit. Iowa and Wisconsin are leaning blue and combined with a strong potential of getting Ohio, I'd say that's a lock for Obama, but that is of course my arm-chair analysis.

Re-electing Obama is like the Titanic backing up and hitting the Iceberg a second time.

Ehhh Romney is Bush Jr. 2.0, will spend faster and commit to more wars with greater devastation. Lose-Lose? Perhaps.