Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Yeah, and we'll make them pay a fee, too. And we'll have plenty of nice, white police officers at the voting stations to make sure the good voters feel comfortable.

Enjoy that straw there mate.

Why do you have a citizenship test? A driving test? Everyone should be allowed to drive without getting a license, that's a white--affluent-only privilege!

Socioedconomic factors limiting minority voting has little to do with voter aptitute testing, and I'd like to thank you for being so supportive of the current scenarios where people will vote for the most damaging candidates because they are most vocal, which invariably leads to voter suppression in minority areas.

[Mephansteras]

I still think voter aptitude tests should be required to register to vote.

That's open to some serious abuse, though. Just look at the shennanigans Texas is pulling to try and cripple the ability of democrat-heavy groups to vote. Unless it is tightly regulated, it'd be very easy to rig the tests in such a way that people with the 'right' level of education and viewpoint are the ones most likely to pass.

Plus, while it sounds nice to be able to keep the 'wrong' people from voting (they don't understand what they're voting on, they always vote their party regardless of the people involved, etc) I'm not sure what the test would actually measure. If you're restricting it to people with the time, energy, education, and intelligence to actually understand all the major issues and current political state of the world you're going to be restricting the voting population by a huge margin. After all, the main reason for having a representative government is so that the average person doesn't have to understand these things. That's what the elected officials are for.

Even if it's done in an evenhanded way, you could end up with a circular system that keeps various groups down. After all, if you're too poor to get the education and understanding to pass the test, you can't exactly vote for someone who cares about your position to help you change it.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Noone is too poor to learn.

Basic aptitude testing, on the status of party alignments, etc. You do not need to make it a 100% threshold. 30% would be good enough to weed out the absolutely ignorant ideologues of any identification that are damaging our country by voting in harmful policy creating decision makers.

[Max White]

I still think voter aptitude tests should be required to register to vote.

Actually I think the exact opposite, that is mandatory voting, will serve you better.
With optional voting, politicians tend to use more and more extreme rhetoric to rile voters into feeling the absolute need to actually vote. You need to overcome voter apathy, and you do that by making it very clear that you are the other guy are polar opposite, and that the other guy will destroy your way of life. Election after election both sides get more polarized, until they totally refuse to talk to each other.
With mandatory voting you don't need to overcome that level of apathy to make people actually vote, you just need to appeal to the broad, sensible middle ground that will attract the mass of voters that don't feel very strongly one way or another. Election after election both sides become more willing to give up strict ideals in exchange for pragmatism, and populism wins over radicalism.

[mainiac]

I was thinking of something. Has there been any attempt by Republicans to push states like California to move to a proportional system to allocate Electors for the presidential elections? It would be fairer to Californian republicans (their votes don't mean shit at the moment), would force Presidential candidates to pay more attention to California and of course would rob the Dems of around 20 Electors (it's like a free Pennsylvania!)

Yes, of course there has.  Republicans favor anything that favors republicans.  They introduced a bill in California back in 2007 and introduced several bills in 2012 after they realized they controlled a lot of state legislatures where they lost the presidential race.  However such blatant election theft was too slimy even for most state republican legislators.

Edit: Or the Dems trying something similar in Texas or anything.

No, because democrats aren't republicans and don't do such things.  Several democratic controlled states do however support the interstate compact, to eliminate the electoral college.

I still think voter aptitude tests should be required to register to vote.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Historically everywhere that voter aptitude tests have been implemented they have been massively abused.  The supreme court very correctly put in place very strong safeguard against any sort of poll test (or poll tax) more then a century back.  It really shouldn't surprise you... disenfranchising people and autocracy go hand and hand.  The entire reason they got implemented was to disenfranchise black voters in the south through rigged tests (ask the white guy to spell cat, ask the black guy to spell something hard.)

And seriously, if you think that people don't deserve to vote, get over yourself.  Can you draw an IS-LM curve off the top of your head?  Well why the hell do you think that you deserve to vote if you don't know even basic economics?  It wasn't too long ago that more than half the student body of harvard medical school was illiterate, such standards are arbitrary and arbitrary standards are just the tyranny of someone somewhere.

[10ebbor10]

Additionally, if you don't believe that more than half the people make the right decision more than half the time, you shouldn't be aiming for a democracy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Additionally, if you don't believe that more than half the people make the right decision more than half the time, you shouldn't be aiming for a democracy.

That's a fallacious argument. There are plenty of other reasons one should support democracy. For example, it encourages a society where issues are solved through discussion rather than bloodshed.

[lue]

Well, it's more representative... slightly.

Of course, the congress is the real power, and where the most disfunction is. I'd like to hear some reforms in that area. For one thing, small states need to be, in game parlance, nerfed. Why, exactly, are Wyomingites 65 times more politically important than Californians? Just because 250 years ago some Rhode Islanders held twelve other colonies hostage unless they got to pretend they were a real state?

Now, I have an idea for something at least slightly better. Firstly, Congress is too large to function (there'll always be one of them crazy enough to shut down the whole thing), and too small to represent everybody (there's 535 of them to represent 313 million, or half a million each on average. Texas's two senators represent 13 million people each).

So, it needs tiers. There's still two houses, but now there's the House which is a larger body, and the Senate which is the smaller superior body to that. Each state gets one rep, plus one for each 100,000 citizens. The House votes amongst its members to advance them to the Senate, which has a number of seats equal to 1/20th that of the House.

There's lots of tweaks that can be done at this point, who proposes and who disposes, the powers of the two portions, and everything. Worth noting, the smaller Senate is specifically designed to break individual state control of the federal government; the Senators are from the states, but they rely on the approval of wider House. Pork barrels dry up because the Senate needs to approve it and they're all responsive to all the states, not just their own.

Downsides: Well, California is 10% of the population. In theory, all of the Senators could be Californian... but you'd need all the other states to support that.

Well, the Senate was designed to be the more elderly house, with the calm and cool heads, while the House is meant to a younger, more hot-blooded representation of the people. Also, the Senate wasn't always voted upon by direct election, The 17th Amendment made it that way. I don't have high hopes for a proposal that tries to take that away.

Aside from those points, I would like to see the Senate be the national, no-state-interests legislative body. One possibility I imagine is dividing up the nation into 100 non-gerrymandered districts for Senate, with each district required to cover parts of at least two states.

Also, I'm pretty sure the only reason the House is capped at 435 members is because they don't want to build more seats .

[Sinistar]

Actually I think the exact opposite, that is mandatory voting, will serve you better.
With optional voting, politicians tend to use more and more extreme rhetoric to rile voters into feeling the absolute need to actually vote. You need to overcome voter apathy, and you do that by making it very clear that you are the other guy are polar opposite, and that the other guy will destroy your way of life. Election after election both sides get more polarized, until they totally refuse to talk to each other.
With mandatory voting you don't need to overcome that level of apathy to make people actually vote, you just need to appeal to the broad, sensible middle ground that will attract the mass of voters that don't feel very strongly one way or another. Election after election both sides become more willing to give up strict ideals in exchange for pragmatism, and populism wins over radicalism.

Hear, hear!
I like the way you think. Political apathy on one hand and extreme rhetoric are a problem in my country too (EU). Though I'm sure at least some of the later would remain even with mandatory voting and there's the whole problem with "You have no RIGHT to force me to vote!" crowd, I still like the idea.
But sorry to barge in like that. Carry on, friends.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Historically everywhere that voter aptitude tests have been implemented they have been massively abused.  The supreme court very correctly put in place very strong safeguard against any sort of poll test (or poll tax) more then a century back.  It really shouldn't surprise you... disenfranchising people and autocracy go hand and hand.  The entire reason they got implemented was to disenfranchise black voters in the south through rigged tests (ask the white guy to spell cat, ask the black guy to spell something hard.)

And seriously, if you think that people don't deserve to vote, get over yourself.  Can you draw an IS-LM curve off the top of your head?  Well why the hell do you think that you deserve to vote if you don't know even basic economics?  It wasn't too long ago that more than half the student body of harvard medical school was illiterate, such standards are arbitrary and arbitrary standards are just the tyranny of someone somewhere.

Mob rule is preferable. I get it.

I've said this forever ago but I'll say it again: Mandatory voting coupled with voter aptitude testing wil fix a plethorah of issues in the voting process from voter inactivity to willing voter ignorance. We currently live in an America where only the extreme will vote and the rest are entirely disenfranchised. "Wasted vote" syndrome.

Is it okay that we live in a country where 60% of people do not care or want to vote in national elections because the other 40% has fucked up the entire process so much that the otherwise moderate voters do not want to participate?

[10ebbor10]

Let's try to limit the straw manning before this completely escalates, shall we.

On a side note, voter aptitude tests don't work because they're way to easily abused. It's practically impossible to set up a neutral voting installation.

On another note, if you don't believe that more than 50% of the people makes the right choice more than 50% of the time, then well yes, democracy might not be the right political system for you. ((And well, an argument with the average voter might be pretty convincing of that.))

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Let's try to limit the straw manning before this completely escalates, shall we.

On a side note, voter aptitude tests don't work because they're way to easily abused. It's practically impossible to set up a neutral voting installation.

On another note, if you don't believe that more than 50% of the people makes the right choice more than 50% of the time, then well yes, democracy might not be the right political system for you. ((And well, an argument with the average voter might be pretty convincing of that.))

Mob rule is not a plurality. And that 50% number to be aimed for is skewed by the lack of voter participation.  In that vein: do you truly believe the Democratic or Republican parties have 50% support, or have ever had 50% support amongst the entire populace?

[PTTG??]

I was thinking of something. Has there been any attempt by Republicans to push states like California to move to a proportional system to allocate Electors for the presidential elections? It would be fairer to Californian republicans (their votes don't mean shit at the moment), would force Presidential candidates to pay more attention to California and of course would rob the Dems of around 20 Electors (it's like a free Pennsylvania!)

Yes, of course there has.  Republicans favor anything that favors republicans.  They introduced a bill in California back in 2007 and introduced several bills in 2012 after they realized they controlled a lot of state legislatures where they lost the presidential race.  However such blatant election theft was too slimy even for most state republican legislators.

Edit: Or the Dems trying something similar in Texas or anything.

No, because democrats aren't republicans and don't do such things.  Several democratic controlled states do however support the interstate compact, to eliminate the electoral college.

Well, I don't want to shock anyone, but I'm in California. That out of the way, I want to see all states use proportionate representation. Texas and California included. The fact that representing people better will never happen because one side or the other will see political repercussions disturbs me. It's admitting that what you are doing is something that you are only able to do because of flaws in the system, and both sides do it.

[10ebbor10]

Let's try to limit the straw manning before this completely escalates, shall we.

On a side note, voter aptitude tests don't work because they're way to easily abused. It's practically impossible to set up a neutral voting installation.

On another note, if you don't believe that more than 50% of the people makes the right choice more than 50% of the time, then well yes, democracy might not be the right political system for you. ((And well, an argument with the average voter might be pretty convincing of that.))

Mob rule is not a plurality. And that 50% number to be aimed for is skewed by the lack of voter participation.  In that vein: do you truly believe the Democratic or Republican parties have 50% support, or have ever had 50% support amongst the entire populace?

I don't. Honestly, it's a 2 party system, and a horribly implemented one too. (In fact, you can win with a mere 21% of the votes). I just don't believe that vote exclusion is the solution (or a solution, for that matter). A beginning of a solution would be the complete removal of all first past the post systems in any situation, mandatory voting, and much more strict lobbying laws.

[mainiac]

I've said this forever ago but I'll say it again: Mandatory voting coupled with voter aptitude testing wil fix a plethorah of issues in the voting process from voter inactivity to willing voter ignorance. We currently live in an America where only the extreme will vote and the rest are entirely disenfranchised. "Wasted vote" syndrome.

We currently live in America, not your imagination.  Voter aptitude tests would do a great deal of harm and fix nothing.