I love perl. What I don't love is the deliberately obfuscated perl written by someone trying to be clever and/or indispensible by writing code only they can (quickly) understand.
There used to be an annual contest called "The Obfuscated C Contest", where contenders had to perform some specified task in as unreadable way as possible. The ability to make C look like line noise on a modem was amazing. Perl is not special in allowing this kind of stuff.
The USB keyloggers present themselves over the USB bus as a keyboard, but not necessarily YOUR keyboard.
A keylogger need not present itself as anything over the USB bus. It can simply monitor the data lines that pass through it, allowing your keyboard to talk to the system. How do you detect that?
Second, what OS has the 'feature' of locking itself to one specific vendor and device id for its input devices? That 'feature' would be disabled the very first time the keyboard needed to be replaced in a hurry, like "I just showed up to deliver a lecture and the keyboard on the display computer is broken. I'll use the keyboard from one of the other systems in the room..."
I got *a lot* of productivity out of perl when it was popular.
The productivity of a programmer doesn't depend on how popular the programming language he uses is, it depends on his skill and the suitability of the language to the task.
Don't let a website that thinks you can determine the popularity of a programming language from the number of up-and-down votes on stories related to it change your estimation of your productivity with it. Flamebait written about perl here would get down-mods; that doesn't change the value of perl itself.
if you are having problems with Perl being updated when your server updates you are probably using the Perl that was installed as part of your system to run your app.
If you have that kind of problem, they you are programming in some very esoteric, bleeding edge parts of Perl. I have never had a perl script break because I updated the OS. I also use perl to serve all kinds of dynamic web content.
What you describe is no different than if your app uses a c runtime library that is over written by the system during an update.
If you have an OS that installs a non-compatible C runtime library during an update, your OS is doing it wrong. Changing such a basic system library should only be done when installing a new OS, not during any update.
I was berated by Larry Wall over this, he told me "you computer scientists are all alike". His goal was to get a flexible and powerful scripting language that can be used to get the job done.
Then he must be rolling over in his grave considering the way Perl 6 has been taken over by computer scientists.
And it does just that - people use Perl because it can get stuff done.
Why is USB device plug can read keyboard input without installation or authorization from the computer?
News for nerd: many, if not most, modern keyboards are USB. Plugging a device into the computer and then the keyboard into the device means it looks like a keyboard to the system and there is still only one on the system.
Is plugin a mouse or keyboard really have the feedback of each key pressed?
Yes, a keyboard knows what keys have been pressed. That's kinda the whole purpose of a keyboard.
It's also logically wrong, because you don't actually save any daylight by closing the curtains to be able to see the TV or computer,
You've gone well beyond any personal experience held by most/. readers. There are no windows and thus no curtains in their parent's basement. They never get sun glare on the computer.
Oh, you guys have gained a day! Is that because of global warming?
Not so, dear sir. Global warming is going to make Britain colder, don't you know? It's supposed to shift the gulf stream south away from the British coast, and all the heat that flows from the equator to England will go to the other EU countries.
I've heard it's a retaliation by Belgium and France for Brexit, but that could just be a rumor.
LED lighting is one of the greatest things ever invented. There's basically no downside.
Except when cheap companies make cheap switching power supplies to run them and flood the spectrum with RF noise. And cheap contractors use lower quality lights intended for office (I forget which class of unintentional emitter that is) and shop use in a place where the better class device is required -- another example of RF pollution.
Your system is wrong as it is enables special advantageous treatment which by definition is not democratic.
It is NOT MY SYSTEM, and no, allowing anyone who is eligible and wants to vote to do so is NOT "special advantageous treatment." What kind of an illiterate are you?
Compulsory voting is the only solution that actually embodies the foundations of democracy as a representative government.
Compulsory voting is antithetical to freedom, which is part and parcel of true, working democracy, and violates two of the necessary conditions for a democracy to achieve a consensus on the true will of the people.
Compulsory voting does not result in democracy, and democracy does not require compulsory voting. There are simply too many real-world examples of those facts for you to successfully deny them, no matter how hard you try. And I'm done trying to educate you on the US system.
It isn't my existing system. It is THE existing system in the US. If you aren't part of the US system, then you have no grounds to tell us how to do things.
the issues selected for attention are those of the niche not representative of every voter
It would be impossible to conduct a campaign that covers issues that every voter cares about, simply due to time and money limitations. The issues that do get major press are mainstream and intended to cover the most people, because the niche issues are the ones that most people don't care about to begin with. That's why they are niche.
so naturally it seems that every voter is not interested.
Well, clearly that is not true since there are people who do vote, and because they make the effort the assumption would be that they are, indeed interested.
I disagree with your assumptions and so disagree with your claims.
Well, thanks Captain Obvious. You assume that forcing people to do things they do not want to do is good for them and results in "freedom" and "democracy", and I know better.
Your opposition to representation
Now I know you are yapping just to hear yourself yap, and I'm getting fucking tired of it. I have told you repeatedly that I do not oppose "representation", nor have I written anything that would lead a literate person to that conclusion. Saying that voting should be voluntary is NOT the same as saying that some people should not be allowed to vote. Not even close. Only a moron or someone who wanted to deliberately misrepresent my position would say that.
you are opposed to the foundation of democracy.
Voluntary participation of an informed electorate is the foundation of democracy. Mandatory participation by uninformed, uncaring voters is how you can destroy democracy. We know which side we are on, so tell me again who is opposed to democracy and who favors it. No, don't bother, because I expect it will be another lie.
Not everything is an essay, and advantages of compulsory voting outweigh disadvantages by far.
No, I'm sorry, but forcing people to express an opinion about things that they have zero interest in does NOT improve democracy or the answers that come from voting.
Yes, I know very well the issues with self-selected sampling. I also understand that forcing people to produce an opinion about something on demand when they didn't care enough to express it on their own doesn't result in a valid sample. I've already written about this, but you overlooked it because you wanted to put your words in my mouth instead of understanding mine.
Representation prevents abuses of power as no party or group can be abused for the benefit of another.
It is very hard to argue that people who care so little about issues that they choose not to vote on them feel that they are being abused by the system. People who do care already have a means of expressing it. That's what is necessary for representation.
A fine platitude, but once again it completely ignores what I've actually written. Nothing I've written opposes representation. Stop putting up that straw man.
Your addition of a condition even "informed" isn't democracy.
Obfuscant is completely correct, as evidenced by "A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate", attributed to Thomas Jefferson. The founders of the United States understood what aspects were important for a representative democracy. In addition to the informed electorate, voluntary association "plays a vital, although sometimes not very visible, role in American society as engines of innovation in political and civic life".
Your choice to travel during vote means you choose to pay the fine.
What if I choose not to vote, and choose not to pay the fine? Then what?
You are an autocrat in denial, which is the most dangerous type. Examine your faulty beliefs for your own benefit.
I am informed, but I don't vote because I think voting encourages them. You wish to compel me to do something I don't want to do, in order to give legitimacy to those in power. You, sir, are the autocrat in denial.
I am taking the unusual (for me) step of quoting this in its entirety because I have no mod points to give. It provides the cites for things that I assume are part of every citizen's free public education because they were part of mine. There are links in the parent, please review them.
It also raises the not insubstantial point that not voting is the way many people exercise their freedom of speech. They are attempting to make a statement about the process. Forcing them to vote infringes on that freedom of speech.
I think balancing freedom of speech, which is in the Constitution, against mandatory voting, which is not, should be sufficient to tip the scales irreversibly to one side.
You are claiming only "informed": should have votes,
You are either illiterate or a liar, I don't know which. I've never said any such thing. I've repeatedly told you that the concept of DEMOCRACY is based on a VOLUNTARY, INFORMED ELECTORATE. I've also explicitly said that practicalities prohibit a test for "informed", so we let anyone who is eligible and interested enough to do so vote.
I have written absolutely nothing calling for anyone to lose the right to vote. Nada. Zilch. I resent you trying to lie about that, and I wish you'd stop.
In such case the employer is required to pay the fine.
You keep saying that, but just try telling my BRAZILIAN employer that he's paying a fine to the state of Oregon for my non-attendance at a polling place that we don't have anyway. You so glibly try to deal with serious issues when demanding that people vote and get multiple national holidays to do it that you ignore the practicalities of the problem.
Mine is maximum representation during campaigns and during elections,
Mandatory voting accomplishes neither, for reasons I've already beaten to death.
Yours ignores the fact that in your existing system obstructions are used to disenfranchise targeted groups
We're not talking about restrictions on voting, we're talking about making a voluntary action that MUST be voluntary to have any meaning into a mandatory one. Forcing people to vote when they simply do not care about the result does not improve the answer. Democracy is not well served by getting "an answer, any answer", it is best served by informed people making informed choices on matters that concern them.
Your view is wrong and against the very foundation of democracy.
Once you remove the critical concepts behind democracy you've undermined democracy beyond repair. That you do not understand this is, well, I give up. Taking away freedom in the search for "better democracy" is an oxymoron of gigantic proportions.
Needless to say, mandatory voting will not come to the US anytime soon, at least as long as the proponents of mail voting are still in congress. And I expect that when Wyden leaves, the next one from Oregon will tout the system still.
You don't get to choose which citizens can vote, that isn't democracy.
I don't know where the hell you get the idea I said anything about choosing which citizens can vote. I'm pointing out that forcing people to vote isn't giving them a choice, and it is, ultimately, their choice if they want to vote or not. It is THEIR right, not yours to decide for them.
Requiring all to vote means the interests of all must be the basis of a successful political campaign,
What utter bullshit. You think that making voting mandatory will make people care about the issues. Some small percentage, perhaps, but if they cared about the issues they'd already be voting. No, mandatory voting will increase the number of people that will be targets to sound bites and personalities, because if they don't care about the issues that's all that's left for them to base a vote on.
not niche special interests that when served deprive others of representation.
Nobody is talking about depriving anyone of the right to vote. The issue is whether making voting MANDATORY is a good thing, and you've said nothing to support that idea.
What seems to be a few levels above your pay grade is the basic concept that inherent in the concept of "rights", as in "the right to vote", is the right to not exercise that right.
Would you support the idea that the government can force everyone to attend a public meeting? That's the mandatory exercise of the right to peaceably assemble as found in the First Amendment. Surely, if someone has that right he ought to be forced to exercise it, yes?
Perhaps one of the atheists who read this forum might help educate my worthy opponent regarding the "free exercise of religion" clause not mandating an exercise of religion? I think it is usually worded as "the freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion." This is just another example of a right to do something also being a right not to do that very thing.
Your choice to travel during vote means you choose to pay the fine.
Nope. My choice to travel was based on attending a meeting run by my employer, and I wanted to stay employed. Or I wanted to attend the funeral of my Brazilian relative. Or any of a thousand other reasons that have no relation to choosing to pay a fine. You truly do want the US economy shut down for a day to three a year just to force people to vote.
Your addition of a condition even "informed" isn't democracy.
Yes, sir, it is. It is the basis for democracy. An informed electorate making choices for the good of all. Practical issues keep there from being tests for "informed", so it is, by default, open to anyone eligible who cares enough to participate.
And "voluntary" is a critical part of the "freedom" that democracy relies on.
You are an autocrat in denial,
You want to force people to vote even when they have no desire to, and pay fines if they choose to exercise their basic human rights, and you say I am the autocrat.
Examine your faulty beliefs for your own benefit.
Or what, you're going to arrest, I mean fine, me for holding those beliefs? Will you retroactively fine the founders for holding the same ones? I think you need to think about what "freedom" means, and its application to democracy.
Pi IS 3, to one significant digit. And if you use the common approximation of 22/7 for pi, by all rules of significance you should be using 3 anyway.
Two other facts that you overlooked in your haste to insult the people of Indiana. First, the bill never passed, so claiming that pi was set to three "by resolution of the assembly" is wrong. And second, the actual bill didn't try to set a value of pi, but the value that was implied was closer to 3.2 and not 3.
You ought to read your citations before flinging them about.
I vote by mail in Oregon. What do you mean I have to "show up"? Are you one of those right wing bigots who wants to make voting harder so minority people won't do it?
Why do you assume that someone blinded by his existential fears and motivated by his narrow, special interests is able to take a decision more conducive to the common good?
It is more likely than someone who doesn't give a shit and is annoyed at being force to "show up" somewhere will make a decision "more conducive to the common good". Elections with random results, or results based solely on name recognition, are unlikely to be the true will of the people. E.g., 20% of the people, who are informed on the issues and know the candidates, want candidate B, but candidate A wins because his name is on the ballot ahead of B and 80% of the people, the ones who don't give a crap who wins, just check the first box available so they can leave. That's an accurate representation of "the will of the people"? Right.
If you don't believe that the result of forcing people who don't care enough to register and vote under the current system to actually vote will be worse than what we have, then you must also be someone who doesn't mind political advertising. You see, the whole purpose for such advertising is to get the people who don't care much to vote for that candidate. Forcing people who don't care to vote will only increase the pool of "don't cares" that the advertising can influence. And by "don't care" I mean both "don't care at all about the entire system" and "don't prefer one candidate over the other".
Not at all. Compulsory voting as a system is enforced uniformly by fines.
Fine, whatever, it DOES NOT MATTER. The CONCEPT is that freedom includes the freedom NOT to vote as well as the freedom TO vote. Get to the concept, ignore what the specific punishment is.
For example, how do I avoid the fine for not voting when I'm in Brazil on the day that I'm supposed to appear at the mandatory place to vote? You said "no exceptions". Do we force every voter to be in-country and in-state on that one day, as well as closing down the entire economy for another day or two or three of the year?
The fact of compulsory voting requires that time is provided or employers pay the fines,
You keep saying this, but the truth is that there is no requirement for a national holiday. There are simply too many ways to vote without having to take time off work for there ever to be another national holiday created to shut the economy down. And this ignores the fact that in many places, there is more than one election per year. We manage three and sometimes four here.
Requiring that everyone present at a polling station and be offered a direct opportunity to vote is the maximum that can be done elicit the casting of a free vote.
You have a definition of "free" that matches neither free as in beer or free as in whatever the other thing is. Forcing people to vote is not a sign of freedom, and the effects on the economy make it hardly "free".
In fact it is what is required for democracy to function as the engine of the will of all governed.
No. That is simply not true. Sometimes the will of the governed is to be left alone. Forcing people to pretend they care doesn't solve anything. I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring because you're hung up on "fine" vs. "arrest", that democracy requires a VOLUNTARY and INFORMED electorate, and I've told you why.
How is the right not to vote more important the the right to vote without obstruction,
I didn't say it was. I've been discussing MANDATORY voting.
and instead being enabled to vote by requirement?
You don't need mandatory voting to allow voting.
Democracy requires participation, that is the price of it.
Voluntary participation of an educated electorate. That's the assumption that the founders based the system on, and one of the excuses for mandating a free public education through high school.
The other side of freedom requires freedom FROM the government where it is possible, and this is one such situation. Forcing someone who truly does not care which candidate wins, or which ballot measures pass or fail, to make an arbitrary or random decision can change the result so it is no longer an accurate representation of the will of the people. I've already pointed this out.
If you want government without representation
Who has said they want that?
you have a number of dictatorial options.
You do realize that you've just lost the argument for mandatory voting, right? There are "dictatorial options" that include "mandatory voting" where the results are simply ignored or managed so the outcome is what the dictator wants.
Ok, so you said registered and I read that as also vote. My bad.
Mandatory registration is not as big a problem as mandatory voting, and if you don't have vote by mail it is much less of a problem overall. But keeping it from being a problem requires validating the voter when he does, which is becoming politically incorrect here.
Slashdot Mirror
Epoxy is a solution, but not a good one.
There is no security without physical security.
The computer is in a place that the public can access.
I love perl. What I don't love is the deliberately obfuscated perl written by someone trying to be clever and/or indispensible by writing code only they can (quickly) understand.
There used to be an annual contest called "The Obfuscated C Contest", where contenders had to perform some specified task in as unreadable way as possible. The ability to make C look like line noise on a modem was amazing. Perl is not special in allowing this kind of stuff.
The USB keyloggers present themselves over the USB bus as a keyboard, but not necessarily YOUR keyboard.
A keylogger need not present itself as anything over the USB bus. It can simply monitor the data lines that pass through it, allowing your keyboard to talk to the system. How do you detect that?
Second, what OS has the 'feature' of locking itself to one specific vendor and device id for its input devices? That 'feature' would be disabled the very first time the keyboard needed to be replaced in a hurry, like "I just showed up to deliver a lecture and the keyboard on the display computer is broken. I'll use the keyboard from one of the other systems in the room..."
I got *a lot* of productivity out of perl when it was popular.
The productivity of a programmer doesn't depend on how popular the programming language he uses is, it depends on his skill and the suitability of the language to the task.
Don't let a website that thinks you can determine the popularity of a programming language from the number of up-and-down votes on stories related to it change your estimation of your productivity with it. Flamebait written about perl here would get down-mods; that doesn't change the value of perl itself.
if you are having problems with Perl being updated when your server updates you are probably using the Perl that was installed as part of your system to run your app.
If you have that kind of problem, they you are programming in some very esoteric, bleeding edge parts of Perl. I have never had a perl script break because I updated the OS. I also use perl to serve all kinds of dynamic web content.
What you describe is no different than if your app uses a c runtime library that is over written by the system during an update.
If you have an OS that installs a non-compatible C runtime library during an update, your OS is doing it wrong. Changing such a basic system library should only be done when installing a new OS, not during any update.
I was berated by Larry Wall over this, he told me "you computer scientists are all alike". His goal was to get a flexible and powerful scripting language that can be used to get the job done.
Then he must be rolling over in his grave considering the way Perl 6 has been taken over by computer scientists.
And it does just that - people use Perl because it can get stuff done.
That's why I use it.
Why is USB device plug can read keyboard input without installation or authorization from the computer?
News for nerd: many, if not most, modern keyboards are USB. Plugging a device into the computer and then the keyboard into the device means it looks like a keyboard to the system and there is still only one on the system.
Is plugin a mouse or keyboard really have the feedback of each key pressed?
Yes, a keyboard knows what keys have been pressed. That's kinda the whole purpose of a keyboard.
It's also logically wrong, because you don't actually save any daylight by closing the curtains to be able to see the TV or computer,
You've gone well beyond any personal experience held by most /. readers. There are no windows and thus no curtains in their parent's basement. They never get sun glare on the computer.
Oh, you guys have gained a day! Is that because of global warming?
Not so, dear sir. Global warming is going to make Britain colder, don't you know? It's supposed to shift the gulf stream south away from the British coast, and all the heat that flows from the equator to England will go to the other EU countries.
I've heard it's a retaliation by Belgium and France for Brexit, but that could just be a rumor.
LED lighting is one of the greatest things ever invented. There's basically no downside.
Except when cheap companies make cheap switching power supplies to run them and flood the spectrum with RF noise. And cheap contractors use lower quality lights intended for office (I forget which class of unintentional emitter that is) and shop use in a place where the better class device is required -- another example of RF pollution.
Do you want your kids walking to school in the dark at 8am all winter long?
Yes. In the snow. Ten miles. Uphill, both ways. Just like I did. It builds character.
Now get off my lawn, you molly-coddled youngster.
How the hell is this "news", for nerds or otherwise? How does it matter to anyone?
Your system is wrong as it is enables special advantageous treatment which by definition is not democratic.
It is NOT MY SYSTEM, and no, allowing anyone who is eligible and wants to vote to do so is NOT "special advantageous treatment." What kind of an illiterate are you?
Compulsory voting is the only solution that actually embodies the foundations of democracy as a representative government.
Compulsory voting is antithetical to freedom, which is part and parcel of true, working democracy, and violates two of the necessary conditions for a democracy to achieve a consensus on the true will of the people.
Compulsory voting does not result in democracy, and democracy does not require compulsory voting. There are simply too many real-world examples of those facts for you to successfully deny them, no matter how hard you try. And I'm done trying to educate you on the US system.
The problem with your existing system is that
It isn't my existing system. It is THE existing system in the US. If you aren't part of the US system, then you have no grounds to tell us how to do things.
the issues selected for attention are those of the niche not representative of every voter
It would be impossible to conduct a campaign that covers issues that every voter cares about, simply due to time and money limitations. The issues that do get major press are mainstream and intended to cover the most people, because the niche issues are the ones that most people don't care about to begin with. That's why they are niche.
so naturally it seems that every voter is not interested.
Well, clearly that is not true since there are people who do vote, and because they make the effort the assumption would be that they are, indeed interested.
I disagree with your assumptions and so disagree with your claims.
Well, thanks Captain Obvious. You assume that forcing people to do things they do not want to do is good for them and results in "freedom" and "democracy", and I know better.
Your opposition to representation
Now I know you are yapping just to hear yourself yap, and I'm getting fucking tired of it. I have told you repeatedly that I do not oppose "representation", nor have I written anything that would lead a literate person to that conclusion. Saying that voting should be voluntary is NOT the same as saying that some people should not be allowed to vote. Not even close. Only a moron or someone who wanted to deliberately misrepresent my position would say that.
you are opposed to the foundation of democracy.
Voluntary participation of an informed electorate is the foundation of democracy. Mandatory participation by uninformed, uncaring voters is how you can destroy democracy. We know which side we are on, so tell me again who is opposed to democracy and who favors it. No, don't bother, because I expect it will be another lie.
Not everything is an essay, and advantages of compulsory voting outweigh disadvantages by far.
No, I'm sorry, but forcing people to express an opinion about things that they have zero interest in does NOT improve democracy or the answers that come from voting.
Yes, I know very well the issues with self-selected sampling. I also understand that forcing people to produce an opinion about something on demand when they didn't care enough to express it on their own doesn't result in a valid sample. I've already written about this, but you overlooked it because you wanted to put your words in my mouth instead of understanding mine.
Representation prevents abuses of power as no party or group can be abused for the benefit of another.
It is very hard to argue that people who care so little about issues that they choose not to vote on them feel that they are being abused by the system. People who do care already have a means of expressing it. That's what is necessary for representation.
Everything opposing representation opposes democracy itself.
A fine platitude, but once again it completely ignores what I've actually written. Nothing I've written opposes representation. Stop putting up that straw man.
Your addition of a condition even "informed" isn't democracy.
Obfuscant is completely correct, as evidenced by "A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate", attributed to Thomas Jefferson. The founders of the United States understood what aspects were important for a representative democracy. In addition to the informed electorate, voluntary association "plays a vital, although sometimes not very visible, role in American society as engines of innovation in political and civic life".
Your choice to travel during vote means you choose to pay the fine.
What if I choose not to vote, and choose not to pay the fine? Then what?
You are an autocrat in denial, which is the most dangerous type. Examine your faulty beliefs for your own benefit.
I am informed, but I don't vote because I think voting encourages them. You wish to compel me to do something I don't want to do, in order to give legitimacy to those in power. You, sir, are the autocrat in denial.
I am taking the unusual (for me) step of quoting this in its entirety because I have no mod points to give. It provides the cites for things that I assume are part of every citizen's free public education because they were part of mine. There are links in the parent, please review them.
It also raises the not insubstantial point that not voting is the way many people exercise their freedom of speech. They are attempting to make a statement about the process. Forcing them to vote infringes on that freedom of speech.
I think balancing freedom of speech, which is in the Constitution, against mandatory voting, which is not, should be sufficient to tip the scales irreversibly to one side.
You are claiming only "informed": should have votes,
You are either illiterate or a liar, I don't know which. I've never said any such thing. I've repeatedly told you that the concept of DEMOCRACY is based on a VOLUNTARY, INFORMED ELECTORATE. I've also explicitly said that practicalities prohibit a test for "informed", so we let anyone who is eligible and interested enough to do so vote.
I have written absolutely nothing calling for anyone to lose the right to vote. Nada. Zilch. I resent you trying to lie about that, and I wish you'd stop.
In such case the employer is required to pay the fine.
You keep saying that, but just try telling my BRAZILIAN employer that he's paying a fine to the state of Oregon for my non-attendance at a polling place that we don't have anyway. You so glibly try to deal with serious issues when demanding that people vote and get multiple national holidays to do it that you ignore the practicalities of the problem.
Mine is maximum representation during campaigns and during elections,
Mandatory voting accomplishes neither, for reasons I've already beaten to death.
Yours ignores the fact that in your existing system obstructions are used to disenfranchise targeted groups
We're not talking about restrictions on voting, we're talking about making a voluntary action that MUST be voluntary to have any meaning into a mandatory one. Forcing people to vote when they simply do not care about the result does not improve the answer. Democracy is not well served by getting "an answer, any answer", it is best served by informed people making informed choices on matters that concern them.
Your view is wrong and against the very foundation of democracy.
Once you remove the critical concepts behind democracy you've undermined democracy beyond repair. That you do not understand this is, well, I give up. Taking away freedom in the search for "better democracy" is an oxymoron of gigantic proportions.
Needless to say, mandatory voting will not come to the US anytime soon, at least as long as the proponents of mail voting are still in congress. And I expect that when Wyden leaves, the next one from Oregon will tout the system still.
You don't get to choose which citizens can vote, that isn't democracy.
I don't know where the hell you get the idea I said anything about choosing which citizens can vote. I'm pointing out that forcing people to vote isn't giving them a choice, and it is, ultimately, their choice if they want to vote or not. It is THEIR right, not yours to decide for them.
Requiring all to vote means the interests of all must be the basis of a successful political campaign,
What utter bullshit. You think that making voting mandatory will make people care about the issues. Some small percentage, perhaps, but if they cared about the issues they'd already be voting. No, mandatory voting will increase the number of people that will be targets to sound bites and personalities, because if they don't care about the issues that's all that's left for them to base a vote on.
not niche special interests that when served deprive others of representation.
Nobody is talking about depriving anyone of the right to vote. The issue is whether making voting MANDATORY is a good thing, and you've said nothing to support that idea.
What seems to be a few levels above your pay grade is the basic concept that inherent in the concept of "rights", as in "the right to vote", is the right to not exercise that right. Would you support the idea that the government can force everyone to attend a public meeting? That's the mandatory exercise of the right to peaceably assemble as found in the First Amendment. Surely, if someone has that right he ought to be forced to exercise it, yes?
Perhaps one of the atheists who read this forum might help educate my worthy opponent regarding the "free exercise of religion" clause not mandating an exercise of religion? I think it is usually worded as "the freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion." This is just another example of a right to do something also being a right not to do that very thing.
Your choice to travel during vote means you choose to pay the fine.
Nope. My choice to travel was based on attending a meeting run by my employer, and I wanted to stay employed. Or I wanted to attend the funeral of my Brazilian relative. Or any of a thousand other reasons that have no relation to choosing to pay a fine. You truly do want the US economy shut down for a day to three a year just to force people to vote.
Your addition of a condition even "informed" isn't democracy.
Yes, sir, it is. It is the basis for democracy. An informed electorate making choices for the good of all. Practical issues keep there from being tests for "informed", so it is, by default, open to anyone eligible who cares enough to participate.
And "voluntary" is a critical part of the "freedom" that democracy relies on.
You are an autocrat in denial,
You want to force people to vote even when they have no desire to, and pay fines if they choose to exercise their basic human rights, and you say I am the autocrat.
Examine your faulty beliefs for your own benefit.
Or what, you're going to arrest, I mean fine, me for holding those beliefs? Will you retroactively fine the founders for holding the same ones? I think you need to think about what "freedom" means, and its application to democracy.
Two other facts that you overlooked in your haste to insult the people of Indiana. First, the bill never passed, so claiming that pi was set to three "by resolution of the assembly" is wrong. And second, the actual bill didn't try to set a value of pi, but the value that was implied was closer to 3.2 and not 3.
You ought to read your citations before flinging them about.
The latter.
I vote by mail in Oregon. What do you mean I have to "show up"? Are you one of those right wing bigots who wants to make voting harder so minority people won't do it?
Why do you assume that someone blinded by his existential fears and motivated by his narrow, special interests is able to take a decision more conducive to the common good?
It is more likely than someone who doesn't give a shit and is annoyed at being force to "show up" somewhere will make a decision "more conducive to the common good". Elections with random results, or results based solely on name recognition, are unlikely to be the true will of the people. E.g., 20% of the people, who are informed on the issues and know the candidates, want candidate B, but candidate A wins because his name is on the ballot ahead of B and 80% of the people, the ones who don't give a crap who wins, just check the first box available so they can leave. That's an accurate representation of "the will of the people"? Right.
If you don't believe that the result of forcing people who don't care enough to register and vote under the current system to actually vote will be worse than what we have, then you must also be someone who doesn't mind political advertising. You see, the whole purpose for such advertising is to get the people who don't care much to vote for that candidate. Forcing people who don't care to vote will only increase the pool of "don't cares" that the advertising can influence. And by "don't care" I mean both "don't care at all about the entire system" and "don't prefer one candidate over the other".
none of those problems are unique to compulsory voting.
Did you completely skip over the part where I said "increase the effects"?
and somehow we muddle through.
Yes, we do. So the argument that we should force people to do something they don't want to do was what, again?
Not at all. Compulsory voting as a system is enforced uniformly by fines.
Fine, whatever, it DOES NOT MATTER. The CONCEPT is that freedom includes the freedom NOT to vote as well as the freedom TO vote. Get to the concept, ignore what the specific punishment is.
For example, how do I avoid the fine for not voting when I'm in Brazil on the day that I'm supposed to appear at the mandatory place to vote? You said "no exceptions". Do we force every voter to be in-country and in-state on that one day, as well as closing down the entire economy for another day or two or three of the year?
The fact of compulsory voting requires that time is provided or employers pay the fines,
You keep saying this, but the truth is that there is no requirement for a national holiday. There are simply too many ways to vote without having to take time off work for there ever to be another national holiday created to shut the economy down. And this ignores the fact that in many places, there is more than one election per year. We manage three and sometimes four here.
Requiring that everyone present at a polling station and be offered a direct opportunity to vote is the maximum that can be done elicit the casting of a free vote.
You have a definition of "free" that matches neither free as in beer or free as in whatever the other thing is. Forcing people to vote is not a sign of freedom, and the effects on the economy make it hardly "free".
In fact it is what is required for democracy to function as the engine of the will of all governed.
No. That is simply not true. Sometimes the will of the governed is to be left alone. Forcing people to pretend they care doesn't solve anything. I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring because you're hung up on "fine" vs. "arrest", that democracy requires a VOLUNTARY and INFORMED electorate, and I've told you why.
How is the right not to vote more important the the right to vote without obstruction,
I didn't say it was. I've been discussing MANDATORY voting.
and instead being enabled to vote by requirement?
You don't need mandatory voting to allow voting.
Democracy requires participation, that is the price of it.
Voluntary participation of an educated electorate. That's the assumption that the founders based the system on, and one of the excuses for mandating a free public education through high school.
The other side of freedom requires freedom FROM the government where it is possible, and this is one such situation. Forcing someone who truly does not care which candidate wins, or which ballot measures pass or fail, to make an arbitrary or random decision can change the result so it is no longer an accurate representation of the will of the people. I've already pointed this out.
If you want government without representation
Who has said they want that?
you have a number of dictatorial options.
You do realize that you've just lost the argument for mandatory voting, right? There are "dictatorial options" that include "mandatory voting" where the results are simply ignored or managed so the outcome is what the dictator wants.
Mandatory registration is not as big a problem as mandatory voting, and if you don't have vote by mail it is much less of a problem overall. But keeping it from being a problem requires validating the voter when he does, which is becoming politically incorrect here.