conspiracy theories regarding gay marriage ammendments aside
i'm guessing that you don't care much the 'theory of evolution' either. conspiracies are only conspiracies if they are secret. open statements about courting evangelicals and organizing an amendment that has no hope of ratification to boost turnout isnt theory. it's fact.
it is all about compromises. every other elected office in the land is directly elected. except for the presidency. even that has been reformed. originally it was just that state legislatures that chose electors.
maybe it's time for another baby step towards a true democracy. you know, a step like expanding the vote to non-landownders, non-whites, women and 18-20 year olds.
just cause it's been so for 200 years doesnt make it just, fair, logical, democratic, or tolerable.
well, 1) we have the senate where small states are given a disproportionate say. why should they have a disproportionate say in two branches?
2) i am a poliical scientist and i do know
3) so why should there be 1 elector per 400k wyoming residents and only 1 per 600k ny residents? are the opinions of wyoming residents more important because they choose to live in a rural location?
4) why should our 'democracy' be scewed because of imaginary colonial/territory boundaries arbitarily set hundreds of years ago? should we cling to outdated standards? why keep blackls, women and non-landowners from voting?
5) at one point the electors in the electoral college were chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote on a state by state basis, why not go back to that?
I do see an argument that a straight popular vote could disenfranchise states that are supposed to be on an equal footing.
again, why should a land mass be more important than a person? you say you don't know but yet you defend it? do you just want to argue (that i can actually respect)? or do you honestly believe that dirt has more rights than people?
i could give a shit if big block of land is being disenfranchised. but if 1/3 of the PEOPLE (not land) in most populous states in the union are being misrepresented, then i do care.
i'm, sorry if i offended you with math, statistics, fairness and a yearning for a real deomcracy.
i'll give more thought to dirt nextime.
shithead.
Re:Voting more important, can't use retail sales .
on
Disenfranchised In Nevada
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
well 1)HAVA requires all first time registrants to show id. (i dont really agree with this, but it's the law) this should be in effect for all 50 states by nov 2. or at least the states that dont want to pass up on the millions of dollars that HAVA compliance promises.
2) some states already have election day registration. so they must have some system.
3) voting (or attempting) with someone elses name is a felony. so it's not the aclu you have to worry about. do it too often and you'll wind up on that list yourself.
statewide voter registration databases are coming. they too are required HAVA. it's not that hard to have a blacklist of names. if you go to vote and turnout to be blacklisted then you'd vote by affidavit ballot and the burden would be on you to go before a judge and prove you are allowed to vote. ianal, but i work for lawyers who do exactly that.
i dont think people are going to use election fraud as a method of invading someones privacy when the internet is so handy.
but you are right, things are tremendously screwed up.
i agree completely. i did, of course, fail to mention in my post that any such system would absolutely need a voter-verified paper trail.
but accuracy is important. my argument, here, is that since HAVA is require all voter registration databases (at least within each state) be standardized it is possible to allow for accurate, reliable, and efficient election day voter registration. part of the accuracy that is required is that you get accuracy of sample size. i know, it's not really a sample. but why, in this day and age, should i have to register weeks in advance when it can be done the day of the election?
Then America would definately be a majority rules place because then the candidates would only go to the big states.
yeah, this might have been the case when we all traveled by horse and buggy and telegraphs were the communication medium.
but i don't see how a 35 minute layover at an airport means 'attention'given to a particular state. in this century we have information at our fingertips, what difference does it make? in fact without the electoral college maybe they would travel LESS and talk more about issus.
also, it doesn't change the fact that the 18 least populous states which represent approx 6% of the population get almost 12% of the electoral votes.
so, what's wrong with one person one vote?
of course an aol user wants to keep the electoral college. idiots are idiots, not matter what they're talking about.
i said: but, perhaps voter enrollment and registration should be a process that is seperated. you said: Perhaps the national election registration and party primary registration shouldn't have anything to do with eachother in the first place?
same thing. but i feel the need to point out that one REGISTERS to vote and ENROLLS in a party. they often do it at the same time, with the same form, at the same place. but they are two different acts.
i'm not inclined to defend our current political parties (major and minor included) or their practices.
but the concept of a party is a legitimate one. in this country we have A LOT of elections. we elect people on town/city, county, state, federal. with numerous offices in each election. with a host of issues at stake.
a fully-informed electorate is, of course, the ideal. but, honestly, people who work 40+ hours a week can sometimes have more pressing concerns (bills, food, children, etc.) than learning how your city councilmember (and his/her opponent[s]) feels about drug law reforms, or campaign finance laws or any other issue that is important (either to you, your community, or the office). especially since it is VERY difficult to learn what a candidate REALLY thinks believe. their campaign literature is uniformally bogus (it's like trusting a review of a product that was paid for by the manufacturer). yes, there are non-partisan groups that compile voting scorecards for officials that have held LEGISLATIVE office, but these are often scewed to reflect the organizations priorities (environment, criminal justice, abortion issues, etc.). but i would like to plug the best voter guide that i am aware of. it is published by citizens union of nyc. it only covers candidates/issues on the nyc ballot, but it is truly non-partisan, very thorough, and impeccably researched. Citizens Union
parties (as a concept, not necessarily D + R) do offer the electorate a way of expressing their viewpoints in a relatively well-informed and reasonably accountable form. now for such a process to work you'd need proportional representation, multiple parties ($@parties>2), and MAJOR changes to our system. but it's just as much of a pipe dream of 'banning political parties'.
2) so is it honest to ignore, or at least pretend to ignore, overwhelming evidence that is contrary to your position just to save face? does blind faith earn your trust? even MS admits mistakes and releases patches, although often too late.
3)tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. hopefully enough people don't have any doubt in dubya's case foolishness
there is a logic to keeping party primaries closed to only those who have enrolled in the party. people from other parties could vote in your primarty to influence who the candidate is.
but, perhaps voter enrollment and registration should be a process that is seperated.
i think you should be able to register to vote up until and including election day.
parties can set their own criteria for running their business/primaries.
you have a good point. party is declared on voter reg forms so that the voter registration and party enrollment process is streamlined. (you don't have to enroll in any party)
perhaps party enrollment should be done seperately from voter registration.
or we could just scrap voter reg deadlines and allow for election day registration.
this wouldn't be an issue (or much less of one) if we'd scrap all of the hoops you need to jump through to vote. the time for election day voter registration is here. it's the fucking 21st century already. i can have pretty much any consumer item in the world (except duk nukem forever) shipped to me tommorrow, over the internet, but i have to mail in my form 25 days before the election? and 60! before a primary?
HAVA is going to require every state to maintain a centralized voter reg database. with such a system on-demand voting could mean:
1) no more voter reg deadlines. show up give them your name and you vote 2) vote from any poll site. can't make it back to your home before 9? just vote at the most convenient site. a voting kiosk will display the proper ballot for your election district 3) no over-voting. everyone gets one vote, no voting in two districts. in ny it is possible, though illegal, to register in many different counties, since they all keep their own records and dont share (at least not well enough).
backers are still different--i'm looking to see who pays the bills. those are members of the coalition. all they've done, i expect, is say 'yes, voter registration is good'
but i do concede, look to my other post, that this certainly does NOT look like a gop front group.
did some googling. and checked out the whois for americavotes.org. it's registered to a "Carol Trevelyan Strategy Group". googled that and it seems to only do business with progressives.
those local affiliates can have some weird news sources.
the crux of the matter is verification. there NEEDS to be a paper trail. the ONLY reasons given against paper trails are 1) cost and 2) paperjams.
1) the cost of running an election in democracy shouldn't be an issue. it'd be a lot cheaper and more efficient if we just got rid of elections alltogether.
2) a paper jam is an inconvenience that costs a little bit of time but doesnt destroy a record of votes cast. but a magnet or other "feature" (read:bug) could wipe out the entire vote count. that is slightly more than an inconvenience.
there is NO valid argument against a voter-verified paper trail.
well it's sinclair who refused to air the nightline that ran the names of the dead. which isn't really targeted at anyone. unless of course you understand who put them in harms way. it wasnt the iraqis that's for sure.
so, it's proper and right to refuse to air a legitimate and respected news program that, but when it's a hatchet job docufraud it's ok? typical idiot [republican] logic.
Slashdot Mirror
i've moved at least 6 times since i registered for selective service.
i've never sent them a change of address form.
don't kid yourself. this is for the draft. "grading" higher education is a nice additional benefit
i'm guessing that you don't care much the 'theory of evolution' either. conspiracies are only conspiracies if they are secret. open statements about courting evangelicals and organizing an amendment that has no hope of ratification to boost turnout isnt theory. it's fact.
hey, if it gets rid of bush and the electoral college at the same time i dont see the problem. two birds with one stone.
no, but it might make you kill yourself.
the senate is at least balanced by the house.
it is all about compromises. every other elected office in the land is directly elected. except for the presidency. even that has been reformed. originally it was just that state legislatures that chose electors.
maybe it's time for another baby step towards a true democracy. you know, a step like expanding the vote to non-landownders, non-whites, women and 18-20 year olds.
just cause it's been so for 200 years doesnt make it just, fair, logical, democratic, or tolerable.
well,
1) we have the senate where small states are given a disproportionate say. why should they have a disproportionate say in two branches?
2) i am a poliical scientist and i do know
3) so why should there be 1 elector per 400k wyoming residents and only 1 per 600k ny residents? are the opinions of wyoming residents more important because they choose to live in a rural location?
4) why should our 'democracy' be scewed because of imaginary colonial/territory boundaries arbitarily set hundreds of years ago? should we cling to outdated standards? why keep blackls, women and non-landowners from voting?
5) at one point the electors in the electoral college were chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote on a state by state basis, why not go back to that?
I do see an argument that a straight popular vote could disenfranchise states that are supposed to be on an equal footing.
again, why should a land mass be more important than a person? you say you don't know but yet you defend it? do you just want to argue (that i can actually respect)? or do you honestly believe that dirt has more rights than people?
i could give a shit if big block of land is being disenfranchised. but if 1/3 of the PEOPLE (not land) in most populous states in the union are being misrepresented, then i do care.
i'm, sorry if i offended you with math, statistics, fairness and a yearning for a real deomcracy.
i'll give more thought to dirt nextime.
shithead.
well
1)HAVA requires all first time registrants to show id. (i dont really agree with this, but it's the law) this should be in effect for all 50 states by nov 2. or at least the states that dont want to pass up on the millions of dollars that HAVA compliance promises.
2) some states already have election day registration. so they must have some system.
3) voting (or attempting) with someone elses name is a felony. so it's not the aclu you have to worry about. do it too often and you'll wind up on that list yourself.
statewide voter registration databases are coming. they too are required HAVA. it's not that hard to have a blacklist of names. if you go to vote and turnout to be blacklisted then you'd vote by affidavit ballot and the burden would be on you to go before a judge and prove you are allowed to vote. ianal, but i work for lawyers who do exactly that.
i dont think people are going to use election fraud as a method of invading someones privacy when the internet is so handy.
but you are right, things are tremendously screwed up.
i was under the impression that people vote. not land masses.
i guess your idea of democracy is a little different than mine.
maybe only landowners get to vote in your worold.
shithead.
i agree completely. i did, of course, fail to mention in my post that any such system would absolutely need a voter-verified paper trail.
but accuracy is important. my argument, here, is that since HAVA is require all voter registration databases (at least within each state) be standardized it is possible to allow for accurate, reliable, and efficient election day voter registration. part of the accuracy that is required is that you get accuracy of sample size. i know, it's not really a sample. but why, in this day and age, should i have to register weeks in advance when it can be done the day of the election?
thank you, i guess.
Q: When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion?
A:If leaders form their opinions based on a set of facts and they learn that those facts are wrong, it is appropriate to change their position
that seems like a direct answer to a direct question. where is the dishonesty?
Then America would definately be a majority rules place because then the candidates would only go to the big states.
yeah, this might have been the case when we all traveled by horse and buggy and telegraphs were the communication medium.
but i don't see how a 35 minute layover at an airport means 'attention'given to a particular state. in this century we have information at our fingertips, what difference does it make? in fact without the electoral college maybe they would travel LESS and talk more about issus.
also, it doesn't change the fact that the 18 least populous states which represent approx 6% of the population get almost 12% of the electoral votes.
so, what's wrong with one person one vote?
of course an aol user wants to keep the electoral college. idiots are idiots, not matter what they're talking about.
i said:
but, perhaps voter enrollment and registration should be a process that is seperated.
you said:
Perhaps the national election registration and party primary registration shouldn't have anything to do with eachother in the first place?
same thing. but i feel the need to point out that one REGISTERS to vote and ENROLLS in a party. they often do it at the same time, with the same form, at the same place. but they are two different acts.
i'm not inclined to defend our current political parties (major and minor included) or their practices.
but the concept of a party is a legitimate one. in this country we have A LOT of elections. we elect people on town/city, county, state, federal. with numerous offices in each election. with a host of issues at stake.
a fully-informed electorate is, of course, the ideal. but, honestly, people who work 40+ hours a week can sometimes have more pressing concerns (bills, food, children, etc.) than learning how your city councilmember (and his/her opponent[s]) feels about drug law reforms, or campaign finance laws or any other issue that is important (either to you, your community, or the office). especially since it is VERY difficult to learn what a candidate REALLY thinks believe. their campaign literature is uniformally bogus (it's like trusting a review of a product that was paid for by the manufacturer). yes, there are non-partisan groups that compile voting scorecards for officials that have held LEGISLATIVE office, but these are often scewed to reflect the organizations priorities (environment, criminal justice, abortion issues, etc.). but i would like to plug the best voter guide that i am aware of. it is published by citizens union of nyc. it only covers candidates/issues on the nyc ballot, but it is truly non-partisan, very thorough, and impeccably researched. Citizens Union
parties (as a concept, not necessarily D + R) do offer the electorate a way of expressing their viewpoints in a relatively well-informed and reasonably accountable form. now for such a process to work you'd need proportional representation, multiple parties ($@parties>2), and MAJOR changes to our system. but it's just as much of a pipe dream of 'banning political parties'.
e-voting is fine, by me at least, given a voter-verified paper trail.
1) apparently you've never heard of an analogy
2) so is it honest to ignore, or at least pretend to ignore, overwhelming evidence that is contrary to your position just to save face? does blind faith earn your trust? even MS admits mistakes and releases patches, although often too late.
3)tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. hopefully enough people don't have any doubt in dubya's case foolishness
yeah and here is a site that says satan endorses bush.
do you believe everything you read on the web?
there is a logic to keeping party primaries closed to only those who have enrolled in the party. people from other parties could vote in your primarty to influence who the candidate is.
but, perhaps voter enrollment and registration should be a process that is seperated.
i think you should be able to register to vote up until and including election day.
parties can set their own criteria for running their business/primaries.
you have a good point. party is declared on voter reg forms so that the voter registration and party enrollment process is streamlined. (you don't have to enroll in any party)
perhaps party enrollment should be done seperately from voter registration.
or we could just scrap voter reg deadlines and allow for election day registration.
this wouldn't be an issue (or much less of one) if we'd scrap all of the hoops you need to jump through to vote. the time for election day voter registration is here. it's the fucking 21st century already. i can have pretty much any consumer item in the world (except duk nukem forever) shipped to me tommorrow, over the internet, but i have to mail in my form 25 days before the election? and 60! before a primary?
HAVA is going to require every state to maintain a centralized voter reg database. with such a system on-demand voting could mean:
1) no more voter reg deadlines. show up give them your name and you vote
2) vote from any poll site. can't make it back to your home before 9? just vote at the most convenient site. a voting kiosk will display the proper ballot for your election district
3) no over-voting. everyone gets one vote, no voting in two districts. in ny it is possible, though illegal, to register in many different counties, since they all keep their own records and dont share (at least not well enough).
backers are still different--i'm looking to see who pays the bills. those are members of the coalition. all they've done, i expect, is say 'yes, voter registration is good'
but i do concede, look to my other post, that this certainly does NOT look like a gop front group.
did some googling. and checked out the whois for americavotes.org. it's registered to a "Carol Trevelyan Strategy Group". googled that and it seems to only do business with progressives.
those local affiliates can have some weird news sources.
those are coalition partners. big difference.
all of your points are dead on.
the crux of the matter is verification. there NEEDS to be a paper trail. the ONLY reasons given against paper trails are 1) cost and 2) paperjams.
1) the cost of running an election in democracy shouldn't be an issue. it'd be a lot cheaper and more efficient if we just got rid of elections alltogether.
2) a paper jam is an inconvenience that costs a little bit of time but doesnt destroy a record of votes cast. but a magnet or other "feature" (read:bug) could wipe out the entire vote count. that is slightly more than an inconvenience.
there is NO valid argument against a voter-verified paper trail.
well it's sinclair who refused to air the nightline that ran the names of the dead. which isn't really targeted at anyone. unless of course you understand who put them in harms way. it wasnt the iraqis that's for sure.
so, it's proper and right to refuse to air a legitimate and respected news program that, but when it's a hatchet job docufraud it's ok? typical idiot [republican] logic.