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]

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.

I think you've shown you have a bit of an interest in the current system where democrats and republicans can completely manipulate and control their 'chosen' areas.

I'd just like to note that 60% of the eligible voting populace does not participate because of extremists and ideologues making the entire process untouchable by the moderate. A process you seem to support because "Democrats aren't Republicans" and therefore superior, deserving of control of policies around the nation without inhibition or third parties.

Try to chill out.

[Max White]

1. Mandatory voting.
2. Preferential voting.
3. Nation wide senate.
4. Superman for president.

Anything else on the Christmas list?

[Darvi]

No amount of mandatory voting can overcome my massive apathy.



Of course, I was gonna vote this year but stuff :V

1. Mandatory voting.
2. Preferential voting.
3. Nation wide senate.
4. Superman for president.

Anything else on the Christmas list?

Hoverbikes.

Jetpacks.

[GlyphGryph]

Mict, the problem is that while your "solution" of voter aptitude tests is emotionally appealing, you'd have to propose a process under which they could possibly work for it to be taken seriously. Because we've tried it. A lot of times! And every time turns out way, way worse than the alternative. We have demonstrated ourselves utterly incapable, time and time again, of managing to implement a decent aptitude test, and it's unlikely to change because every singly potential route to getting them is just chock full of perverse incentives the entire bloody way.

The key to implementing a good democracy isn't doing things that sound good, it's implementing a system that will be hard for people to screw up too badly, and does it's best to secure a good outcome (a government serving and working for the people, representing their interests, and doing their jobs to the best of their ability insuring that the money they are given is put to good use and not wasted on cronies and corruption). Aptitude testing is incredibly easy to screw up, and everybody who would be involved with implementing the program has direct incentives to screw up instead of doing a good job!

And it wouldn't even address the system problems that plague our system in the slightest - it would just hand more votes to the extremists, who are, let's be honest, almost all perfectly capable of memorizing whatever answers they need if they think it will help their cause.

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

Why does this make it better?

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?

How would this actually fix any of the real, existent problems with our political system? Same for your other solution - how would it actually help? What would it accomplish?

What would be the practical benefits to making these changes?

[lue]

I'd just like to note that 60% of the eligible voting populace does not participate because of extremists and ideologues making the entire process untouchable by the moderate.

Really? I've always understood it as being a dissatisfaction with both of the main parties and then being left with a vote that wouldn't matter, i.e. the two-party system is to blame. People who hate the whole process tend to vote for Mickey Mouse instead of not participate.

Of course, my claim is just as unsourced as yours, I'm just wondering now if anyone has pinned down the reasons.

[misko27]

1. Mandatory voting.
2. Preferential voting.
3. Nation wide senate.
4. Superman for president.

Anything else on the Christmas list?

Superman renounced his American citizenship following rescues he lead that were seen by foreign observers as an act of US policy. He cannot therefore legally be elected to any office in the country, much less President. And, since the purpose of his renunciation was to free himself of accusations of Government influence, holding office would defeat the purpose. Plus he violates the phrase "Natural-born", as he was not born a citizen.


While I agree with GlyphGraph's points, there certainly must be a system more effective at maintaining government. I simply can't imagine one. So resurrecting George Washington and forcing him to become dictator remains my favored option

[bulborbish]

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?

How would this actually fix any of the real, existent problems with our political system? Same for your other solution - how would it actually help? What would it accomplish?

What would be the practical benefits to making these changes?

Not every reform has to be practical, and this reform would fit in with the idea of Equal representation, which currently does not exist in the senate due to the fact that they are guaranteed two senators for just being there.

Granted, It would not be as efficient as abolishing state senator districts and drawing national senator districts, but it would be a significant improvement on the representation side of things. While it does not address all flaws with the current system, It does address a minor problem, which is much more realistic than expecting a large political reformation.

As, as a reminder to everyone, reviving people to run the country will only lead to the rebellion of the ducks, which should be avoided at all costs. (but seriously though, if we want reform we shouldn't rely on a guy whose been dead for any amount of time.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Thing is, you speak as if the current system isn't already full of incentives to pervert the process, from the local election to the national ones. The key is regulating said changes and strengthening/restructuring the ones already in place.

What is so bad about mandatory voting coupled with an extremely low-bar test on basic voter information? In this situation you provide the information to the voter in a brochure. A simple Y/N T/F would be easy for anyone, we do the same for non-citizens and people applying for a driving license.

I can't find any verifiable information on such a system existing in a real way aside from the obvious disenfranchisement campaigns with tests on information people would never know or fees people would never be able to afford. My suggestion is a low-information test to give a baseline of incentive for voters to read their handy-dandy information packet which is shipped with their "VOTE THIS ELECTION OR BE FINED" notification.

Of course I haven't touched on the mandatory voting part, which most of us agree on, which would arguably be the hardest change brought due to entrenched mindsets. I can hear the cries of "Government nanny state" from people who wish to see it stay as it is with a non-plurality of our country calling all shots.

I'd just like if you people weren't taking my suggestion as a Jim Crowe revival.  There's bad ways and good ways to do things in any system.

[Mephansteras]

Mandatory voting I'm ok with, provided that Election day is made a national holiday. Which I feel it should be anyway, since I know I've missed a few elections due to work being crazy and me totally forgetting about it.

As for vote testing, why don't you explain exactly how you see that working and what you think would work? Because the problem we all have with it is that historically any such attempts were either designed as discriminatory from the get-go or quickly corrupted. If you have an idea that you think would be both fair and reasonably difficult to corrupt, I'd be interested in hearing it.

For example, what kinds of questions would you put into the T/F columns?

[Max White]

Don't you have the option to vote early, or by post if you are busy election day?

[lue]

Mictlantecuhtli: For the record, I too would like to be able to allow people to vote only if they know some certain basics about the politics they're about to elect people into. We don't think you want to revive Jim Crow, but the potential for bad people to abuse the tests is very great. One thing I can think of off the top of my head is certain states "forgetting" to send the handy-dandy information packet in time, or "accidentally" making mistakes on a particular language version.

The general idea ("Make sure people know what the hell their decision will do") is good, the specific way about it you want just happens to be extremely finicky to create and maintain in a non-corrupt fashion. Perhaps an extension to the Voting Rights Act to keep those tests in line would help greatly.

Or, perhaps having this test when you register to vote would be better, then it fits more with the "driver's license" analogy.

I also wouldn't mind mandatory voting, though if need be perhaps a tax credit for voting would fly better with people than a fine for not? That's assuming the fine is what people get hung up on, of course. I feel like it would be more American™, politically, to incentivize good behavior.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Mandatory voting I'm ok with, provided that Election day is made a national holiday. Which I feel it should be anyway, since I know I've missed a few elections due to work being crazy and me totally forgetting about it.

As for vote testing, why don't you explain exactly how you see that working and what you think would work? Because the problem we all have with it is that historically any such attempts were either designed as discriminatory from the get-go or quickly corrupted. If you have an idea that you think would be both fair and reasonably difficult to corrupt, I'd be interested in hearing it.

For example, what kinds of questions would you put into the T/F columns?

Dear gods all I know is it cannot be left up to local voting boards. We all know how big of ideologues each and every single one of those are.

That is why I include the modifier 'the brochure included with your mandatory voting notification'. There would need to be a one-size-fits all general test, if it becomes regional/state-by-state it becomes corrupted very easily. Nothing terribly difficult included. General facts; maybe tailor it similar to the citizenship test. I'm not asking people to write out integers by hand. These tests would be very public and very up for scrutiny, as well. No backdoor dealings should be involved in any part of the voting process gyrations.

Hell, I'd think a judicial branch dedicated to such a service would perform very well.

Oh and edit: Have the information released by the USPS, where they actually like to perform their jobs. The incentive to not fuck up is pretty big for that; they need all the money they can!

[GlyphGryph]

Not every reform has to be practical, and this reform would fit in with the idea of Equal representation, which currently does not exist in the senate due to the fact that they are guaranteed two senators for just being there.

If it's not practical, it's pointless. It doesn't have to have an obvious effect, or an immediate effect, but it needs to have an actual effect or it is not worth doing - you end up spending political capital to accomplish nothing.

Granted, It would not be as efficient as abolishing state senator districts and drawing national senator districts, but it would be a significant improvement on the representation side of things. While it does not address all flaws with the current system, It does address a minor problem, which is much more realistic than expecting a large political reformation.

What problem does it actually address? How does it actually fix it? That's the question.

As, as a reminder to everyone, reviving people to run the country will only lead to the rebellion of the ducks, which should be avoided at all costs. (but seriously though, if we want reform we shouldn't rely on a guy whose been dead for any amount of time.

Where's your evidence of this duck rebellion!?!?!?1!!?!?/???//1?


But more seriously, you say it will help, but you don't say why, beyond that it will make it more representative - but you make no effort to explain why that would be a good thing. There are different ways to improve representation, and different results - some methods of improving representation don't actually accomplish anything at all or might even make things worse!

[mainiac]

Try to chill out.

You can not accuse me of strawmanning, then characterize my completely orthodox position as "mob rule" then tell me to chill out.  That train left the station with you shouting "dagnabbit" as it went.

[Toady One]

I haven't gone back and read everything, but I think I'll just throw in a general "be chill" to everybody so that maybe I don't have to read and parse the various propositions and find the point where some line or other was crossed.