In our fondest dreams ...

Nothing to do with my basic premise, which was put back in above, where it belongs.

I don't like it either, but as with most idealistic concepts, they simply can't stand up to practicality.

I agree with your basic premise, but not with the proposed remedy. Benjamin Franklin was once asked how long he thought the republic would endure; he is reputed to have responded "Until the people discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury" -- hence my suggestion.

:-)

Sorry ... my fault. I misread your point. Mea culpa ...

Hmm. And how would you go about determining which partner should be disenfranchised in a divorce? By their political views?

No problem, Karl. Thanks.

Women should not be ... errr, never mind. :)

BTW, women automatically get the house in a divorce! Problem solved.

Nice of you to presume the priviledge of deciding why other people do things. Too bad you are not as wise as you believe yourself to be. You might consider asking people who don't vote, why they don't. BTW - what is an educated opinion? One that matches yours?

It most certainly can defeat the purpose. This has been demonstrated time and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same, regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.

I'd like to see three options on every ballot for every office--"none of the above", "shoot them all", and "abolish the office".

What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.

Nonsense. You propose that things can never be worse.

What an ass.

It's the latest pick-up line in a bar: "Hello gorgeous, can I buy you a house?"

Making voting mandatory is an interesting idea, 32 nations have done so and two-thirds of them enforce that requirement. Hmmmmm--don't vote and you pay a substantial fine (pegged to income)--that should get people's attention. Of course I'd also require that all ballots have a "None of the above" choice.

Some democratic countries (including Australia, Belgium, Switzerland, Mexico, Argentina and Greece) have a similar requirement, and it seems to work quite well for them.

BTW, have you noticed how few actual Communist countries there are left?

All you have to do is deliberately spoil your ballot and you vote for nobody, or there could be a "None of the above" choice.

Mandatory voting would be a modest infringement on our liberty, but it would serve such a compelling public interest that IMO it would be worth it.

Bull, giving political power only to those with wealth is repugnant, you couldn't come up with something that would make politicians and lobbyists happier. The ability of the people to throw morons and crooks out of office is one of the few things that keep the bastards in line.

Are you going to tell a youth who volunteers to risk his life serving his country in uniform that he doesn't get to vote because he doesn't have any property? If the mill closes and people lose their jobs and their homes should that result in them losing the vote? Do you seriously propose that citizens who rent apartments are inherently entitled to fewer rights than people who own houses?

No offense, but that is one lameass idea.

Please .."STEP AWAY FROM THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" Politician is one of the best paying jobs

SNIP

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:13:58 -0600, the infamous "Leon" scrawled the following:

It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.

-- It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars. -- Garrison Keillor

So if through no fault of yours you can no longer work (say due to illness) and you receive public assistance, you would no longer be allowed to vote? That strikes me as pointlessly unfair.

How about the right to vote being contingent on passing a modest current affairs test? If you can't provide one-paragraph outlines of four out of seven major municipal issues and outline the positions of the candidates for mayor and city council then you can't vote (instead you're required to spend the day helping at a polling place or doing some other work of value to the community--say picking up trash in the park with a sign on your back that you're too ignorant to vote). At least then your eligibility is determined by something you have control over. Citizens not able to communicate in English would get *one* pass on that and be able to take the test in Spanish or whatever--but in four years they test in English or they don't vote. Naturally provisions would be made for the illiterate, the blind et al.

However I'd also make voting mandatory, so those who can't be bothered to acquaint themselves with the issues to a reasonable degree would still have to give up a day of public service--intentional ignorance would not get them off the hook.

Tell that to your founding fathers, who first instituted the practice.

I didn't say I liked it, I said what the idealism inherent in the "right to vote for "everyman"" would result in ... in practice it will lead to the eventual decline of this country.

Look around you ... the country is in decline, it is happening before your very eyes, although many are too blind or ignorant to see it, mainly due to the piss poor educational system foisted upon us by the very concept itself ...

The reluctance to accept it as being at the root of the phenomenon is understandable, but it will one day be as obvious as the nose on your face. Count on it.

Again, sad, but true ...

You mean ... of course ... the slave-owning founding fathers?

Do you have a calendar handy? Do you realize this is ... effectively ... 2010??

If you yearn for those times, I can list for you a HOST of emerging nations whose systems much more closely resemble that of our earliest days as a nation.