Teahive wrote:Do you expect me to argue along party lines? Vote rigging is vote rigging. This should be investigated, the software and hardware checked for signs of tampering.
I have to agree. I was for Romney from the start, because I think the country has been divided too long and if there is anyone moderate enough to bring us together it is probably him, but if the votes were tampered with, everyone needs to know.
Somehow though, I think if this had any merit we would have heard from Gingrich and Santorum at the least. Given Santorum hasn't pursued it, my guess is the data can be explained by other means than tampering and it is the interpretation of the data that is in question. This says Santorum should be running. He would not let that slide if he had a choice and he hasn't made a peep.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Diogenes wrote:My philosophy is that if people want a say they should Pay for it! Those of us pulling the wagon do not need input from those riding in the wagon.
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.
Teahive wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Good for Romney. About time we used the Democrat tactics against them! Actually, I think the article is nonsense. I have no doubt that Obama and Clinton would rig elections if they could, but I don't believe goody two-shoes Romney would do such a thing. It is out of character for him.
You made my day.
But I wouldn't attribute it to Romney, anyway. There are plenty of people outside of the candidates themselves who would be interested in manipulating election outcomes.
Do you expect me to argue along party lines? Vote rigging is vote rigging. This should be investigated, the software and hardware checked for signs of tampering.
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.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
GIThruster wrote:Somehow though, I think if this had any merit we would have heard from Gingrich and Santorum at the least. Given Santorum hasn't pursued it, my guess is the data can be explained by other means than tampering and it is the interpretation of the data that is in question. This says Santorum should be running. He would not let that slide if he had a choice and he hasn't made a peep.
I'm not sure about that. If it had been known closely after those primaries, I think you'd have a point. But what good would it do him to bring this up now?
The first paper mentioned was published August 13. And even though the numbers do look very suspicious, you'd want some review process to be sure, which takes more time. And then you still don't know who's to blame, or what the actual result would have been.
Diogenes wrote:
Teahive wrote:
Diogenes wrote:My philosophy is that if people want a say they should Pay for it! Those of us pulling the wagon do not need input from those riding in the wagon.
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.
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?
Considering the implications around reducing the vote to only those who actually pay for government, there are a few interesting observations.
If those who do not pay into the system vote on how to spend the money, we open the door to the use of government as an instrument of plunder. The non-payers can simply vote for the politicians who promise to reward them. This has been going on for some time. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
If only those who pay for things vote, and therefore control spending, then the likelihood of government enabled plunder, at least through the tax code, is reduced. Those who have not yet earned the right to vote through contribution, have a clear path to such which may motivate them to seek economic success.
One could argue that those who are not net tax payers are currently acting in a juvenile role and the government is taking the role of the parent. This is corrosive to the ethic of personal responsibility, and leads to more calls for the government to make the world safe from all risks and provide more handouts. The government is taking on the role of providing charity. This is itself deeply flawed, since the virtue of charity depends on free will and this eliminates it. It also transfers the gratitude to the politicians rather than the true sources of the wealth used to provide the charity. This anti-pattern leads to the entitled plunderer mindset.
If someone wants to have a say so in the direction of the government, perhaps they should demonstrate that they are adult enough to earn that right. Economic contribution would be one means of demonstrating that. Some would argue that military service would also demonstrate that. I am sure we could think of others.
Writing this has made me realize that I probably have a good half dozen rants waiting to be written.
SheltonJ wrote:Considering the implications around reducing the vote to only those who actually pay for government, there are a few interesting observations.
If those who do not pay into the system vote on how to spend the money, we open the door to the use of government as an instrument of plunder. The non-payers can simply vote for the politicians who promise to reward them. This has been going on for some time. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
If only those who pay for things vote, and therefore control spending, then the likelihood of government enabled plunder, at least through the tax code, is reduced. Those who have not yet earned the right to vote through contribution, have a clear path to such which may motivate them to seek economic success.
One could argue that those who are not net tax payers are currently acting in a juvenile role and the government is taking the role of the parent. This is corrosive to the ethic of personal responsibility, and leads to more calls for the government to make the world safe from all risks and provide more handouts. The government is taking on the role of providing charity. This is itself deeply flawed, since the virtue of charity depends on free will and this eliminates it. It also transfers the gratitude to the politicians rather than the true sources of the wealth used to provide the charity. This anti-pattern leads to the entitled plunderer mindset.
If someone wants to have a say so in the direction of the government, perhaps they should demonstrate that they are adult enough to earn that right. Economic contribution would be one means of demonstrating that. Some would argue that military service would also demonstrate that. I am sure we could think of others.
You make some very good points. I would, however, not dismiss the danger of such a government becoming oppressive against the non-payers. Who decides what the barrier of entry is?
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.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Military service and property owner are both excellent examples of someone behaving in a responsible and adult fashion, or contributing in a decidedly non-trivial way. I did mention military service as being a likely qualifier. Generally someone in the military will also be getting paid and is unlikely to be a net consumer of government handouts. Pay of course doesn't count.
I believe there was a time when property ownership was considered the normal and proper hurdle for suffrage.
The key concept is to satisfy an objective indicator of successful adult behavior without being a net drain on the society. Income, wealth, property ownership, military service are all reasonable starting points.
The challenge is how to define such a set of objective criteria which do not become overly burdensome in and of themselves. It is the susceptibility to abuse that has been the historical challenge with such measures.
A minimum safety net is very likely a net gain for the society as a whole. The challenge is again, where to set the bar and how to structure the support. For example charity rarely demands behavior in exchange for help. A safety net can require some level of response, such as public service or other labor, or participation in a skill retraining program.
To your earlier point about the barriers of entry, I believe that following principles should be held true:
The process and procedure to alter the barrier to entry, especially to raise it, should require a super majority.
For very similar reasons, in our current system, we should have a similar requirement to increase tax rates.
In both cases there is a need to have the rule of law provide additional protection for a minority of the population which can otherwise be easily abused and exploited.
SheltonJ wrote: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.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
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.
The gun culture and its attendant attitudes is not prevalent among the huddled masses. Revolts in the name of those masses is most likely to be led by the middle class.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
ladajo wrote:Why not military service and/or property owner?
I have long stated that when the 26th amendment was proposed (lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 ) it should ONLY apply to those serving in the military.
As the biggest proponents for 18 years old voting was Anti-War protestors, I thought it would be poetic justice to give the vote only to those who had the bravery and selflessness to serve in our Military. Unfortunately, they screwed that one up too by including the cowards and the parasites in the amendment.
Both the 24th and the 26th need to be modified or repealed. They were horribly bad mistakes.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
SheltonJ wrote: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.
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.
The other side of that coin is excluding the parasites and those who can't be bothered to be responsible from voting.
ladajo wrote:Why not military service and/or property owner?
I have long stated that when the 26th amendment was proposed (lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 ) it should ONLY apply to those serving in the military.
As the biggest proponents for 18 years old voting was Anti-War protestors, I thought it would be poetic justice to give the vote only to those who had the bravery and selflessness to serve in our Military. Unfortunately, they screwed that one up too by including the cowards and the parasites in the amendment.
Both the 24th and the 26th need to be modified or repealed. They were horribly bad mistakes.
They are hardly definitive. Kids don't vote.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
