Some people don't vote because they are perfectly happy with things as they are.
I don't vote because it wouldn't have any effect.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Nothing to do with the elections. So you're fine with the courts amending the Constitution?
Because they choose to do so as is their right, according to the Constitution. Anyone can be a member of a party. That's their right of free association. States run the elections and they have the power to run them as they please.
At 10%, no, we've seen that before. At 100%, yes. We've seen that too.
I think it's more like $50.
You don't have to vote, but you have to show up and get your named crossed off. Or do a postal vote, or have a good excuse (from the list).
Because, not having visited the rest of the world, they don't realise how much better things could be.
As long as 60% of you feel that way, you'll be right.
We shouldn't restrict the rights of free speech or free association. But we could eliminate formal party registration, party primaries, or any government operations that recognize party membership.
Most people are fundamentally tribal, and tribes go to war. Government policy should not encourage, much less force, people to join a tribe.
California's new open primary law is a small step towards non-tribal politics (not that it will change much here on the Left Coast.)
Both parties would fight that!
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Have you visited the USA, I mean other than in hotels and tourist places? I've worked in England, Japan, Canada, and the USSR, and now I do a lot of work with a Dutch company, and I think that the USA is sure the best place to do engineering. If you don't agonize over politics and things you can't control, the USA is a huge, beautiful, fun, place.
My opinions are so out of the local mainstream that voting is useless.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
ighly dependent on their skill sets. Get off of cloud 9. Next thing you'll be spouting this delusional 'American exceptionalism' nonsense. Anyone who believes in that crap should be committed.
that
ory?)
rule by
We can't force someone to vote--that's a violation of free speech. It's hard to see how making uninformed people vote fixes things.
But centralizing power has moved a lot of non-federal matters out of the reach of voters, and placed those in the hands of the centralized powers.
For example, California voters can approve amending their constitution with respect to recognized marriages, and some federal radical judge simply overrules them. Or the EPA can declare a swimming hole you excavated on your property to be covered under the Navigable Waters provisions of the Clean Water Act, fine you a million dollars for draining it, and there's no t a damn thing anyone can do about it.
Or if they decide it, the life-saving drug you need might get banned.
Thanks to centralizing power under federal authority, they're the ones who make most governing decisions these days. You can't vote the people out. No one can fire them. They're immune from suit, and usually there's no way to even find out who they are.
(E.g.,
But why should x% impose their will on anyone, as long as all are living their own lives and not hurting others?
Our discord is from centralizing power, contrary to our constitution.
Discord is an unavoidable consequence. One-size-fits-all policies in a country this big inherently suit fewer and fewer people, the larger the population they target, and the more diverse that population's customs and needs.
A Wall Street banker, an Amish farmer, an Alaskan Inuit, and an Appalachian hillbilly just don't all have the same needs, wants, or beliefs.
The biggest honor deficit here is people voting to use the federal government to make other people pay their expenses. That's now roughly
2/3rds of all federal spending, and is responsible for essentially all of the national debt.Cheers, James Arthur
Indeed. Just rip up the First Amendment. Leftists don't like it either. Sounds like it's not a "conservative" ideal either.
No, it's just a less diluted vote for those who show up. It's not good to have idiots vote anyway.
We're in this thing together. We should help each other. I can't/wouldn't build a road, a hospital or a school, but I'm glad to help my community pay to do those things. I don't want to farm, that's too hard. I'll pay extra to encourage someone else to, though.
Your problem with centralism is theft, not sharing. Your fantasy of rugged individualism is as much to blame for the theft as centralism is.
Education, health, protection from violence. These are universal needs.
Education, health, protection from violence. And yes, sometimes, food, water and shelter.
What ratio of the national debt is government, and what is personal? The Saudi's and the Chinese own most of the US dept because of individual purchasing decisions, not federal.
Clifford Heath.
te.'
When the US constitution was first put in place, some 6% of the population
- a property-owning elite - were the only people allowed to vote.
James Arthur is once again re-writing history the way he would have liked i t to have been.
But you can force them to take the trouble to turn up at the polling statio n. What they do with their secret ballot is their own business.
But the US is really lousy at educating people so that they can get to be i nformed, so what you seem to want is voters who are ill-informed enough to swallow the kind of guff you peddle.
The US Constitution - as adopted in 1788 - replaced the Articles of Confede ration because as the Confederation Congress attempted to govern the contin ually growing American states, the delegates discovered that the limitation s placed upon the central government rendered it ineffective at doing so.
The US Constitution was put in place to give the central government enough power to do it's job.
ed
he
not
So what.
But not without compelling reason - usually the risk that while it might sa ve your life, it might kill some other patient.
opas-wotu)
It's the "not hurting others" that gets tricky. Dumping dirty chlorinated s olvents into a ditch in the woods behind your factory might not look as if it is "hurting other people" but it does, eventually.
The US Constitution provided enough centralised power to allow for practica l government. The articles of confederation that the constitution replaced hadn't.
sNot a problem that is unique to the USA. Better constitutions than the US h as - and there are quite a few of them - allow the problems to be solved wi th less discord.
an
And in the US the Wall Street banker has a much better chance of having his needs and wants catered to than the other four examples. The history of th e Global Financial Crisis - more accurately labelled as the Sub-Prime Mortg age Crisis - documents a case where the bankers got what they wanted and pr oceeded to exploit their freedom in a way that damaged everybody else as we ll.
It's rare that a particular approach is optimal for just 51% of the populat ion.
James Arthur's problem is that what he wants is optimal for the top 1% of t he income distribution, so he tries to disguise current greed as ancestral wisdom.
Greed is - in principle - negotiable, whereas if you lie about what the fou nding tax evaders had in mind, they aren't going to spring out of the grave s to point out the deceit.
That's James Arthur's point of view. Social security doesn't look much like "other people paying your expenses" if you are getting it, and most of the people who get that money paid out to support other people getting the sam e largesse when they were working.
The donkey vote - distributing preferences from the top of the form down to the bottom, used to represent about 1% of the vote and the reverse donkey vote - going the other way - about half that.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
as naive as ever
ote:
e:
t save your life, it might kill some other patient.
Tabb is as much a right-wing nitwit as James Arthur. They both share the sa me unhappiness about having to pay for a Food and Drug Administration that might stop them selling snake oil, and couldn't care less that their snake oil might kill more than it cured (but not before the patients had paid for it).
Both will explain at great length how government run regulation doesn't rea lly work - but what they mean that it doesn't work for them, even though th ey have been compelled to pay for it.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
I don't pay anything toward the FDA
I've never tried to sell snake oil, literal or figurative, that's not my business
When you demonstrate the first clue what I think, let me know. Until then you're just the same old idiot.
feel free to quote me then
with respect does or does not work is too naive to be very useful. The results of govt regulation are well enough known, its upsides & downsides.
Every time I de-filter you I'm reminded what an idiot you are.
NT
ned.
might save your life, it might kill some other patient.
e same unhappiness about having to pay for a Food and Drug Administration
Or it's local equivalent? The way international drug development works, the FDA costs everybody money, one way or another.
business
ed (but not before the patients had paid for it).
you're just the same old idiot.
really work
ve been compelled to pay for it.
sults of govt regulation are well enough known, its upsides & downsides.
As if NT wasn't an idiot himself. Like krw, he assesses idiocy on the basis that only idiots disagree with him. It is a bit silly to take the trouble to disagree with him - almost quixotic, since he isn't going to change his opinion, no matter how daft it is.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
anned.
t might save your life, it might kill some other patient.
the same unhappiness about having to pay for a Food and Drug Administration
he FDA costs everybody money, one way or another.
y business
ured (but not before the patients had paid for it).
en you're just the same old idiot.
't really work
have been compelled to pay for it.
results of govt regulation are well enough known, its upsides & downsides.
is that only idiots disagree with him. It is a bit silly to take the troubl e to disagree with him - almost quixotic, since he isn't going to change hi s opinion, no matter how daft it is.
welcome back to the time wasting idiot filter
:
banned.
it might save your life, it might kill some other patient.
e the same unhappiness about having to pay for a Food and Drug Administrati on
the FDA costs everybody money, one way or another.
my business
cured (but not before the patients had paid for it).
then you're just the same old idiot.
sn't really work
y have been compelled to pay for it.
e results of govt regulation are well enough known, its upsides & downsides .
asis that only idiots disagree with him. It is a bit silly to take the trou ble to disagree with him - almost quixotic, since he isn't going to change his opinion, no matter how daft it is.
That is where NT does belong, happy in his right-wing bubble, behind his fi lter, where nothing he reads disturbs his fragile equilibrium.
-- Bill sloman, Sydney Bill Sloman, Sydney
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.