So if the test was "What are the VPs for each of the candidates" you think that's discrimination? It's an easy test. Goddamn you act like I'm trying to only allow rich white people with a certain code that was pre-distributed to vote.DBBrinson1 wrote:
I agree with your plan only if I get to write the competency standards voting test. "I don't care what you do up to the point that it effects me".... So how do you feel about higher taxes then?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You can vote for someone based on eye color if you demonstrate any semblance of knowledge of the major candidates. I don't care what you do up to the point that it effects me, and people like the ones in the video Kmarion posted who don't know why the hell they're voting for someone is seriously detrimental to the health of myself and my country.DBBrinson1 wrote:
You used the terms... discourage from voting and simple test.... I can vote for whoever the hell I want simply based on eye color. Freedom is a bitch huh?
You threw out a 150 year old concept of discrimination. Check out Jim Crowe laws. Ha... He was a dem too. You want a test? Cool, but I get to write the test. I'd bet you wouldn't pass and get to vote. Get my point?
Racial discrimination, competency discrimination...yeah you're right it's practically the same thing.
*edit, discrimination is discrimination.
You just spit back out what I said. I don't see your point.FEOS wrote:
And apparently you can't, based on the response from you I quoted.
FEOS wrote:
Yes. I do. I also understand what is meant by "all men are created equal" (see your other thread, same subject).FM wrote:
2. Yes you can read, but you don't know the meaning of "created".
They aren't equal anymore are they now? Created equal, past tense.
Yeah, bullshit. How about you fix the problem by eliminating all the extra votes instead of devising a system that might fix the problem.FEOS wrote:
Which situation? Uninformed voters or ballot box stuffing?FM wrote:
3. Bullshit? How?
Either way, it comes down to districts. There can be 10M votes for one candidate in a district that only has 1M people in it, but the electoral college vote for that person is still just 1. If the uninformed make a poor choice (by your definition, I guess), then they only affect one electoral vote. However, since they are likely in the minority and statistically would be roughly evenly split, it's a wash.
It's even less of an issue in the 48 states that cast their electoral votes as "winner takes all".
They won't be evenly split between the candidates. That's the whole point of devising a test.
Did you write this?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So if the test was "What are the VPs for each of the candidates" you think that's discrimination? It's an easy test. Goddamn you act like I'm trying to only allow rich white people with a certain code that was pre-distributed to vote.
me wrote:
Democracy also demands an informed voter base, and I think this is the biggest fundamental area that current republics are showing so much room for relatively easy improvement. I don't want to racially discriminate at the polls, I don't want to economically discriminate, I don't want to intellectually discriminate, but I do want to informatively discriminate. If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period. We have tests to make sure you have the knowledge base to drive a car, but we don't care how informed you are about the direction of our nation. A simple, easy, 5-10 question test about the campaign that season could go a long way towards weeding out the completely uninformed at the polls and discouraging people we don't want from voting from even trying. Maybe even weight the vote slightly according to the score of the test.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I was showing how what you said at first contradicted what you said in response to DBB's post.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You just spit back out what I said. I don't see your point.FEOS wrote:
And apparently you can't, based on the response from you I quoted.
First you said:
Then you said:If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period.
Then I said:I know everyone can vote
So...let's summarize: Not everyone should be allowed to vote...but everyone can vote.You want a test to filter out those "unworthy" to vote due to their ignorance. You don't want just anyone to be able to vote...so not everyone would be able to vote under your proposal.
You're contradicting your own position.
Yes, they have to be created in order to vote. They can't vote while still separate eggs and sperm. You have a point.FM wrote:
They aren't equal anymore are they now? Created equal, past tense.FEOS wrote:
Yes. I do. I also understand what is meant by "all men are created equal" (see your other thread, same subject).FM wrote:
2. Yes you can read, but you don't know the meaning of "created".
In the eyes of the law (which governs voting, too), they are equal. They have been equal since they were created. Period.
What happens between the time they are created and the time they vote (barring a felony conviction) doesn't change that.
That's not saying that the voter fraud won't be dealt with. What it IS saying is that voter fraud most likely will not affect the outcome of the election, due to the structure of the EC.FM wrote:
Yeah, bullshit. How about you fix the problem by eliminating all the extra votes instead of devising a system that might fix the problem.FEOS wrote:
Which situation? Uninformed voters or ballot box stuffing?FM wrote:
3. Bullshit? How?
Either way, it comes down to districts. There can be 10M votes for one candidate in a district that only has 1M people in it, but the electoral college vote for that person is still just 1. If the uninformed make a poor choice (by your definition, I guess), then they only affect one electoral vote. However, since they are likely in the minority and statistically would be roughly evenly split, it's a wash.
It's even less of an issue in the 48 states that cast their electoral votes as "winner takes all".
They won't be evenly split between the candidates. That's the whole point of devising a test.
You don't know they won't be evenly split between the candidates. Speaking probabilistically, the "dumb" voters are just as likely to cast their uninformed vote for one candidate as they are for the other(s). Or are you saying a test should be devised to ensure that only one candidate's supporters get to vote?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I don't see what the problem is. Of course as things stand right now everyone can vote. In my opinion not everyone should be able to vote, as determined by a knowledge based test of the political opinions of the candidates.FEOS wrote:
I was showing how what you said at first contradicted what you said in response to DBB's post.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You just spit back out what I said. I don't see your point.FEOS wrote:
And apparently you can't, based on the response from you I quoted.
First you said:Then you said:If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period.Then I said:I know everyone can voteSo...let's summarize: Not everyone should be allowed to vote...but everyone can vote.You want a test to filter out those "unworthy" to vote due to their ignorance. You don't want just anyone to be able to vote...so not everyone would be able to vote under your proposal.
You're contradicting your own position.
I obviously agree with you because you have just summarized things as they are.FEOS wrote:
Yes, they have to be created in order to vote. They can't vote while still separate eggs and sperm. You have a point.FM wrote:
They aren't equal anymore are they now? Created equal, past tense.FEOS wrote:
Yes. I do. I also understand what is meant by "all men are created equal" (see your other thread, same subject).
In the eyes of the law (which governs voting, too), they are equal. They have been equal since they were created. Period.
What happens between the time they are created and the time they vote (barring a felony conviction) doesn't change that.
A system that works to minimize the effects of error without trying to fix the error itself is a bad one.FEOS wrote:
That's not saying that the voter fraud won't be dealt with. What it IS saying is that voter fraud most likely will not affect the outcome of the election, due to the structure of the EC.
FEOS wrote:
You don't know they won't be evenly split between the candidates. Speaking probabilistically, the "dumb" voters are just as likely to cast their uninformed vote for one candidate as they are for the other(s). Or are you saying a test should be devised to ensure that only one candidate's supporters get to vote?
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well let's say for example one candidate was a handsome, young, well-spoken individual while the other seems much older and more than a little boring. Will the votes be 50/50 from people who don't know where each stands on the issues? There is a distinct advantage for someone.
That is what it will result in, no matter how well intentioned FM may be. The people at the top will abuse their power to deny people the right to vote based on their definition of "ignorance". And it will be a slippery slope from their on out into a dictatorship, Democrat and Republican wouldn't matter anymore, it'd be one party ruling the country backed by the ruling class, the financial elites. Hello Big Brother. Bye bye freedom.FEOS wrote:
Or are you saying a test should be devised to ensure that only one candidate's supporters get to vote?
I still point to state regulation of things like driving through knowledge based tests. Those seem to work pretty well, and I don't see anyone (above the age of 16 or so) complaining about their god-given right to drive.Spearhead wrote:
That is what it will result in, no matter how well intentioned FM may be. The people at the top will abuse their power to deny people the right to vote based on their definition of "ignorance". And it will be a slippery slope from their on out into a dictatorship, Democrat and Republican wouldn't matter anymore, it'd be one party ruling the country backed by the ruling class, the financial elites. Hello Big Brother. Bye bye freedom.FEOS wrote:
Or are you saying a test should be devised to ensure that only one candidate's supporters get to vote?
Because its not the same. At all.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I still point to state regulation of things like driving through knowledge based tests. Those seem to work pretty well, and I don't see anyone (above the age of 16 or so) complaining about their god-given right to drive.Spearhead wrote:
That is what it will result in, no matter how well intentioned FM may be. The people at the top will abuse their power to deny people the right to vote based on their definition of "ignorance". And it will be a slippery slope from their on out into a dictatorship, Democrat and Republican wouldn't matter anymore, it'd be one party ruling the country backed by the ruling class, the financial elites. Hello Big Brother. Bye bye freedom.FEOS wrote:
Or are you saying a test should be devised to ensure that only one candidate's supporters get to vote?
Driving a car when you don't know how to drive can get you and someone else killed. I do not agree with you when you say that uninformed voters are posing the same type of threat to our society.
1. If "uninformed" = bad, then "informed" = good, right? So, according to your philosophy, a 12 year old child prodigy who is more informed than a 40 year old hillbilly should have the right to vote, yes? You cannot have it both ways. If you are denying people the right that the state, not god (don't know why you used that phrase), gives them to vote, based purely on your definition of "ignorance", then anyone who can pass on your ignorance test should be able to vote.
Do you really think a bunch of uninformed voters are really more dangerous than a bunch of neo-Nazi's voting for their candidate?
2. Everyone knows that people are not equal in any society. There will always be those more fortunate, wealthy, lucky than others. But as a democracy, and as the United States of America, we watch out for the little guy. We say that if you want to be a neo Nazi racist fuck head, then go ahead and be one. Even though most of us don't think like you.
Freedom is not only the freedom to make the right choice, but also the freedom to make the wrong choice, because as individuals, we are equal. We are all the same. Everyones vote counts the same.
FM I noticed you said something about how we are unequal in terms of biology.... sounds like you're advocating eugenics and social darwinism. The thing that people who support those is that they don't understand the idea behind the social contract. I could shoot you with a gun and kill you. Does that mean my vote should count more than yours? Because I have survived and you have not?
How many Americans have been killed in foreign conflicts as a direct result of the decisions made by the politicians we vote for? How many foreigners? How many could be killed in a potential conflict when you take into account our nuclear arsenal?Spearhead wrote:
Because its not the same. At all.
Driving a car when you don't know how to drive can get you and someone else killed. I do not agree with you when you say that uninformed voters are posing the same type of threat to our society.
Good idea, no need for a voting age. The only reason it is there anyways is to make sure voters are responsibly people. Maybe make it like 12.Spearhead wrote:
1. If "uninformed" = bad, then "informed" = good, right? So, according to your philosophy, a 12 year old child prodigy who is more informed than a 40 year old hillbilly should have the right to vote, yes? You cannot have it both ways. If you are denying people the right that the state, not god (don't know why you used that phrase), gives them to vote, based purely on your definition of "ignorance", then anyone who can pass on your ignorance test should be able to vote.
Do you really think a bunch of uninformed voters are really more dangerous than a bunch of neo-Nazi's voting for their candidate?
That is quite the comparison.
Uninformed voters are more of a threat. The probability of an uninformed person voting for evil times the number of uninformed people voting is greater than the probability of a neo-Nazi voting for evil times the number of neo-Nazis.
LOL at the bolded part, are you kidding me? Are you confusing us with Europe?Spearhead wrote:
2. Everyone knows that people are not equal in any society. There will always be those more fortunate, wealthy, lucky than others. But as a democracy, and as the United States of America, we watch out for the little guy. We say that if you want to be a neo Nazi racist fuck head, then go ahead and be one. Even though most of us don't think like you.
Freedom is not only the freedom to make the right choice, but also the freedom to make the wrong choice, because as individuals, we are equal. We are all the same. Everyones vote counts the same.
There is no wrong choice in an election, there is only an uninformed choice.
Want to show me where I said that?Spearhead wrote:
FM I noticed you said something about how we are unequal in terms of biology.... sounds like you're advocating eugenics and social darwinism. The thing that people who support those is that they don't understand the idea behind the social contract. I could shoot you with a gun and kill you. Does that mean my vote should count more than yours? Because I have survived and you have not?
The idea of a social contract is not solely based on darwinian characteristics. Locke would say that though the social contract is very different from anarchy, it is not the complete opposite.
Your are stuck like chuck my friend. When you've got people across the political spectrum linked up saying the same contrary to your borrowed solution... I still think you're ok though, and never claimed at one time not to foster such a belief myself a decade or two ago...
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Republican
|
|
|
|
wrong---------------right
|
|
|
|
Democrat
^^ a little plot of how important I consider party lines to being right or wrong.
I feel like people are entrenched into views of basic rights like voting because of what we have been taught about abuses of the past. We need to learn from the past, but we can't become so scared of it that we can't even attempt to try what could be a good idea again with the knowledge we have gained.
|
|
|
|
wrong---------------right
|
|
|
|
Democrat
^^ a little plot of how important I consider party lines to being right or wrong.
I feel like people are entrenched into views of basic rights like voting because of what we have been taught about abuses of the past. We need to learn from the past, but we can't become so scared of it that we can't even attempt to try what could be a good idea again with the knowledge we have gained.
The highlighted part is the problem. It (and other attempts to control who votes) was done before and found to be unconstitutional.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see what the problem is. Of course as things stand right now everyone can vote. In my opinion not everyone should be able to vote, as determined by a knowledge based test of the political opinions of the candidates.
But you clearly don't agree with things as they are, or you wouldn't be advocating these changes that clearly make some people "less equal" than others based on some criteria you determine.FM wrote:
I obviously agree with you because you have just summarized things as they are.
How is that? A system that anticipates fraud/error and is designed to minimize the impact of said fraud/error is bad? There are other systems in place to deal with the fraud/error when it does occur. One system doesn't have to do both.FM wrote:
A system that works to minimize the effects of error without trying to fix the error itself is a bad one.FEOS wrote:
That's not saying that the voter fraud won't be dealt with. What it IS saying is that voter fraud most likely will not affect the outcome of the election, due to the structure of the EC.
Not necessarily. You are making an unfounded assumption that just because someone is not as informed on the issues as you would like, that they are somehow then swayed by looks instead. There is nothing to base that assumption on. Maybe they're blind. Maybe they're biased against younger people. Maybe they're biased against older people. There are any number of variables there that--probabilistically--will cancel each other out, resulting in a roughly 50-50 split.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well let's say for example one candidate was a handsome, young, well-spoken individual while the other seems much older and more than a little boring. Will the votes be 50/50 from people who don't know where each stands on the issues? There is a distinct advantage for someone.FEOS wrote:
You don't know they won't be evenly split between the candidates. Speaking probabilistically, the "dumb" voters are just as likely to cast their uninformed vote for one candidate as they are for the other(s). Or are you saying a test should be devised to ensure that only one candidate's supporters get to vote?
Driving is not a God-given right. Self-determination (which voting is a part of) is.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see anyone (above the age of 16 or so) complaining about their god-given right to drive.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-10-18 04:03:18)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_ScottFEOS wrote:
The highlighted part is the problem. It (and other attempts to control who votes) was done before and found to be unconstitutional.
That doesn't mean I can disagree with a statement telling things as they are. I can't bend reality with my will.FEOS wrote:
But you clearly don't agree with things as they are, or you wouldn't be advocating these changes that clearly make some people "less equal" than others based on some criteria you determine.
There should be no fraud or error in the system, especially in this day in age. Advocating a system that can elect a president who did not get the popular vote in this day in age with all the advances in technology is ridiculous.FEOS wrote:
How is that? A system that anticipates fraud/error and is designed to minimize the impact of said fraud/error is bad? There are other systems in place to deal with the fraud/error when it does occur. One system doesn't have to do both.
Are you kidding me? Is this a joke?FEOS wrote:
Not necessarily. You are making an unfounded assumption that just because someone is not as informed on the issues as you would like, that they are somehow then swayed by looks instead. There is nothing to base that assumption on. Maybe they're blind. Maybe they're biased against younger people. Maybe they're biased against older people. There are any number of variables there that--probabilistically--will cancel each other out, resulting in a roughly 50-50 split.
The God-given right is to do whatever the fuck you want in the pursuit of happiness, so long as it does not impose on another's right to do so.FEOS wrote:
Driving is not a God-given right. Self-determination (which voting is a part of) is.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see anyone (above the age of 16 or so) complaining about their god-given right to drive.
Try harder.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That doesn't mean I can disagree with a statement telling things as they are. I can't bend reality with my will.FEOS wrote:
But you clearly don't agree with things as they are, or you wouldn't be advocating these changes that clearly make some people "less equal" than others based on some criteria you determine.
Doesn't change the facts of your proposal. If you're proposing that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote because the "aren't good enough", then you clearly don't think all men are created equal. And that's just sad...and a little scary.
And I should be getting a bj from a supermodel right now. But I'm not.FM wrote:
There should be no fraud or error in the system, especially in this day in age. Advocating a system that can elect a president who did not get the popular vote in this day in age with all the advances in technology is ridiculous.FEOS wrote:
How is that? A system that anticipates fraud/error and is designed to minimize the impact of said fraud/error is bad? There are other systems in place to deal with the fraud/error when it does occur. One system doesn't have to do both.
Advocating for a system that prevents the tyranny of one or two states over all the rest is a good thing. Those Framers were some smart fellers.
No. Do some research on probability.FM wrote:
Are you kidding me? Is this a joke?FEOS wrote:
Not necessarily. You are making an unfounded assumption that just because someone is not as informed on the issues as you would like, that they are somehow then swayed by looks instead. There is nothing to base that assumption on. Maybe they're blind. Maybe they're biased against younger people. Maybe they're biased against older people. There are any number of variables there that--probabilistically--will cancel each other out, resulting in a roughly 50-50 split.
Actually, they are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Preventing someone from driving doesn't infringe on any of those. But preventing someone from voting certainly does.FM wrote:
The God-given right is to do whatever the fuck you want in the pursuit of happiness, so long as it does not impose on another's right to do so.FEOS wrote:
Driving is not a God-given right. Self-determination (which voting is a part of) is.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see anyone (above the age of 16 or so) complaining about their god-given right to drive.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Driving (on public roads) is a privilege granted by owner of said roads - namely, the government.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Find where I said "aren't good enough". You put it in quotes, so I must have said it.FEOS wrote:
Try harder.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That doesn't mean I can disagree with a statement telling things as they are. I can't bend reality with my will.FEOS wrote:
But you clearly don't agree with things as they are, or you wouldn't be advocating these changes that clearly make some people "less equal" than others based on some criteria you determine.
Doesn't change the facts of your proposal. If you're proposing that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote because the "aren't good enough", then you clearly don't think all men are created equal. And that's just sad...and a little scary.
You're the one pinning elitism on me, trying to invalidate my proposal by context instead of reason.
Tyranny of one or two states? What are you on about? The tyranny of the majority over their government?FEOS wrote:
And I should be getting a bj from a supermodel right now. But I'm not.FM wrote:
There should be no fraud or error in the system, especially in this day in age. Advocating a system that can elect a president who did not get the popular vote in this day in age with all the advances in technology is ridiculous.FEOS wrote:
How is that? A system that anticipates fraud/error and is designed to minimize the impact of said fraud/error is bad? There are other systems in place to deal with the fraud/error when it does occur. One system doesn't have to do both.
Advocating for a system that prevents the tyranny of one or two states over all the rest is a good thing. Those Framers were some smart fellers.
That is absolutely ridiculous. There is no way to convince you the sky isn't red.FEOS wrote:
No. Do some research on probability.FM wrote:
Are you kidding me? Is this a joke?FEOS wrote:
Not necessarily. You are making an unfounded assumption that just because someone is not as informed on the issues as you would like, that they are somehow then swayed by looks instead. There is nothing to base that assumption on. Maybe they're blind. Maybe they're biased against younger people. Maybe they're biased against older people. There are any number of variables there that--probabilistically--will cancel each other out, resulting in a roughly 50-50 split.
Well thanks for stating what I know to be intrinsic rights as per the Declaration of Independence, but I was leaving out the ones not in question.FEOS wrote:
Actually, they are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Preventing someone from driving doesn't infringe on any of those. But preventing someone from voting certainly does.FM wrote:
The God-given right is to do whatever the fuck you want in the pursuit of happiness, so long as it does not impose on another's right to do so.FEOS wrote:
Driving is not a God-given right. Self-determination (which voting is a part of) is.
Pursuit of happiness takes a lot of forms. If you want to go stand on your head fine you have fun, and the government better not stop you.
A government made of, by, and for the people.Spark wrote:
Driving (on public roads) is a privilege granted by owner of said roads - namely, the government.
So, by that logic, you would oppose rehabilitation and support programs for the severely depressed and suicidal?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
You lost me.Spark wrote:
So, by that logic, you would oppose rehabilitation and support programs for the severely depressed and suicidal?
..and programs for people who have to use bold text.Spark wrote:
So, by that logic, you would oppose rehabilitation and support programs for the severely depressed and suicidal?
which is a large issue in this years election.usmarine wrote:
..and programs for people who have to use bold text.Spark wrote:
So, by that logic, you would oppose rehabilitation and support programs for the severely depressed and suicidal?
All people who are old enough and not criminals should be able to vote.
The idea of uninformed voters has huge numbers of problems. The first one and most significant one is that if only informed people can vote, then probably nobody should be allowed to vote. The effects of policies are often massively complex and dependent upon huge numbers of unexpected factors. If you ask ten economists what any particular policy will do to the economy, chances are you'll get ten different answers. To become informed about all of the issues would be a full time job any may not be humanly possible.
If you are a world renound expert on one issue but know absoulutely nothing about another issue are you qualified to vote? Who gets to determine what counts as informed enough? Who gets to decide it a test what the right answer is?
To get some perspective about having tests to see if you're compitent to vote, just look at citizenship tests. In Britain the exams would firstly be failed by most British citizens, contain loads of irrelevant questions about what date something or other happened a few hundred years ago, and questions that, although the person who wrote it may think they know the answer, the correct answer is in fact incorrect.
The idea of uninformed voters has huge numbers of problems. The first one and most significant one is that if only informed people can vote, then probably nobody should be allowed to vote. The effects of policies are often massively complex and dependent upon huge numbers of unexpected factors. If you ask ten economists what any particular policy will do to the economy, chances are you'll get ten different answers. To become informed about all of the issues would be a full time job any may not be humanly possible.
If you are a world renound expert on one issue but know absoulutely nothing about another issue are you qualified to vote? Who gets to determine what counts as informed enough? Who gets to decide it a test what the right answer is?
To get some perspective about having tests to see if you're compitent to vote, just look at citizenship tests. In Britain the exams would firstly be failed by most British citizens, contain loads of irrelevant questions about what date something or other happened a few hundred years ago, and questions that, although the person who wrote it may think they know the answer, the correct answer is in fact incorrect.
I think the Illuminati and Bilderbergers should decide who gets elected.
Oh wait we have that already.
Oh wait we have that already.
Fuck Israel
It's in quotes because I don't believe it, not because you said it. However, you did say that not everyone should get to vote if they don't know enough about the candidates. What else does it mean if they are refused the opportunity to vote? It means that they aren't good enough to vote because they didn't pass your test with a high enough score. The concept is intrinsic to your argument. You don't have to state it outright for it to be so.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Find where I said "aren't good enough". You put it in quotes, so I must have said it.FEOS wrote:
Try harder.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That doesn't mean I can disagree with a statement telling things as they are. I can't bend reality with my will.FEOS wrote:
But you clearly don't agree with things as they are, or you wouldn't be advocating these changes that clearly make some people "less equal" than others based on some criteria you determine.
Doesn't change the facts of your proposal. If you're proposing that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote because the "aren't good enough", then you clearly don't think all men are created equal. And that's just sad...and a little scary.
You're the one pinning elitism on me, trying to invalidate my proposal by context instead of reason.
I'm not pinning anything on you. Your idea is elitist in its very nature. I have given plenty of reasons why it's bad...taking away a person's right being a major one.
Read the history of how our system of government and division of power was developed. Read the Constitution. Try to understand what United States of America means. It's named that for a reason.FM wrote:
Tyranny of one or two states? What are you on about? The tyranny of the majority over their government?FEOS wrote:
And I should be getting a bj from a supermodel right now. But I'm not.FM wrote:
There should be no fraud or error in the system, especially in this day in age. Advocating a system that can elect a president who did not get the popular vote in this day in age with all the advances in technology is ridiculous.FEOS wrote:
How is that? A system that anticipates fraud/error and is designed to minimize the impact of said fraud/error is bad? There are other systems in place to deal with the fraud/error when it does occur. One system doesn't have to do both.
Advocating for a system that prevents the tyranny of one or two states over all the rest is a good thing. Those Framers were some smart fellers.
I never said the sky was red. You're the one saying it can't possibly be any color other than blue. What's the problem? You can't refute the probability argument?FM wrote:
That is absolutely ridiculous. There is no way to convince you the sky isn't red.FEOS wrote:
No. Do some research on probability.FM wrote:
Are you kidding me? Is this a joke?
There's the error in your thought. Voting is not a "pursuit of happiness". It's the act of someone operating with liberty.FM wrote:
Well thanks for stating what I know to be intrinsic rights as per the Declaration of Independence, but I was leaving out the ones not in question.FEOS wrote:
Actually, they are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Preventing someone from driving doesn't infringe on any of those. But preventing someone from voting certainly does.FM wrote:
The God-given right is to do whatever the fuck you want in the pursuit of happiness, so long as it does not impose on another's right to do so.
Pursuit of happiness takes a lot of forms. If you want to go stand on your head fine you have fun, and the government better not stop you.
So, yes, you've read the Declaration. But you clearly don't understand its meaning.
And all those people vote...but wouldn't be able to under your system.FM wrote:
A government made of, by, and for the people.Spark wrote:
Driving (on public roads) is a privilege granted by owner of said roads - namely, the government.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
"better" is a term that is inapplicable. Am I "better" than you because I scored higher on my SAT? No, I just did better on the test.FEOS wrote:
It's in quotes because I don't believe it, not because you said it. However, you did say that not everyone should get to vote if they don't know enough about the candidates. What else does it mean if they are refused the opportunity to vote? It means that they aren't good enough to vote because they didn't pass your test with a high enough score. The concept is intrinsic to your argument. You don't have to state it outright for it to be so.
I'm not pinning anything on you. Your idea is elitist in its very nature. I have given plenty of reasons why it's bad...taking away a person's right being a major one.
Why do we take away a felon's right to vote?
It's stupid to advocate state's rights when we're talking about a federal election. The POTUS speaks equally for all the people of the U.S., not for these states or those states. Individual states are represented in Congress, not in the executive branch.FEOS wrote:
Read the history of how our system of government and division of power was developed. Read the Constitution. Try to understand what United States of America means. It's named that for a reason.
You're saying there is no bias in the experiment, or that there is equal bias on either side that evens it out. That is an absurd argument, to say two wrongs will make a right.FEOS wrote:
I never said the sky was red. You're the one saying it can't possibly be any color other than blue. What's the problem? You can't refute the probability argument?
You're splitting hairs. The freedom to vote is the freedom to vote for the representative that will best make you happy.FEOS wrote:
There's the error in your thought. Voting is not a "pursuit of happiness". It's the act of someone operating with liberty.
So, yes, you've read the Declaration. But you clearly don't understand its meaning.
All those people with the opportunity and ability to vote, should they choose to accept it.FEOS wrote:
And all those people vote...but wouldn't be able to under your system.FM wrote:
A government made of, by, and for the people.Spark wrote:
Driving (on public roads) is a privilege granted by owner of said roads - namely, the government.
Because they violated others' rights by their behavior. Losing your right (notice it's a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE) to vote--along with many other rights--is part of the punishment.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why do we take away a felon's right to vote?
Tell the Framers they were stupid then. Clearly, you think the states are subordinated to the Federal government. The people who designed our government and wrote our constitution would disagree with you. All powers not expressly given the federal government belong to the states--it's pretty unambiguous which one the Framers wanted running things. It is the very concept of the state and the union of the various states that our entire system of government is built upon.FM wrote:
It's stupid to advocate state's rights when we're talking about a federal election. The POTUS speaks equally for all the people of the U.S., not for these states or those states. Individual states are represented in Congress, not in the executive branch.FEOS wrote:
Read the history of how our system of government and division of power was developed. Read the Constitution. Try to understand what United States of America means. It's named that for a reason.
I'm not saying that two wrongs will make a right. I'm not judging the rightness or wrongness of a given person's ignorance. However, you are.FM wrote:
You're saying there is no bias in the experiment, or that there is equal bias on either side that evens it out. That is an absurd argument, to say two wrongs will make a right.FEOS wrote:
I never said the sky was red. You're the one saying it can't possibly be any color other than blue. What's the problem? You can't refute the probability argument?
What I am saying is that if you look at the distribution of "ignorance", it will follow a bell curve just like any other natural distribution. The two ends are the ignorant people and the bulk are under the peak of the curve. Hence, the ignorant people who would vote for one candidate are effectively canceled out by the ignorant people who would vote for the other. It's the way things work...I'm not making it up.
If using terms the way they were meant to be used is splitting hairs, then so be it. If splitting hairs shows the invalidity of your position, so be it. Voting does not fall under the "pursuit of happiness". It falls squarely under liberty--freedom to vote and vote for who you want to vote for.FM wrote:
You're splitting hairs. The freedom to vote is the freedom to vote for the representative that will best make you happy.FEOS wrote:
There's the error in your thought. Voting is not a "pursuit of happiness". It's the act of someone operating with liberty.
So, yes, you've read the Declaration. But you clearly don't understand its meaning.
But not under your system.FM wrote:
All those people with the opportunity and ability to vote, should they choose to accept it.FEOS wrote:
And all those people vote...but wouldn't be able to under your system.FM wrote:
A government made of, by, and for the people.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular