RE: why isnt it the law here, too?

RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mixielicous -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:05:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous thanks for your opinion, but i will hold my tongue and also ask that all other replies please refrain flaming statements like this b/c i am sick of losing threads to Threadkilosis That isn't a flaming statement. It's an opinion that disagrees with your own. I think the notion of requiring people to vote is silly. If you require them to vote then you have to require people to informed about politics because otherwise you will have huge segament of the population voting randomly just to avoid the fine. You try educating people about politics against their will. That would be waste of time, energy and money. And is probably more pointless then starting another "sub vs. slave" thread. as i already stated, the flame comment was not towards missturbation. and if all these people dont vote, then who cares? the govt could certainly use the money [lower taxes, anyone?]

AquaticSub -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:05:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous quote: ORIGINAL: Lorgrom quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous i hate to be the bubble burster, but were a republic. we elect people to vote for us. Agreeded we are a republic. But even our elected reprensitives have the right to abstain from voting on things while in office. So why remove that same choice from the people? i see your argument, and raise you 'for the people, BY the people' if there are people out there not voting, our country is not a fair representation of its citizens. if people dont want to vote, i find its generally not b/c they dont want to, rather there is nothing to vote on that strikes a cord. while i realize mt current statement does nothing but prove YOUR point, i am sure you can see mine. What if the people don't want to vote? I see your point but a lot of people really don't care or aren't informed enough. I vote in the presidental elections and nothing else. Why? Because I'm not informed enough to make a valid voting selection and frankly... I don't care enough to find out right now.

mixielicous -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:07:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn ... "all other replies please refrain flaming statements like this" is a little hard to not understand ... especially since, at the time, it was the only response. Good try though. [;)][;)] i am so glad people read all the way through. "like this" was meant to be missturbations reply, not mine

AquaticSub -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:08:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lorgrom quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous the objective is not to force people who adamantly disagree with the people to vote on, but the people who are too lazy to get themselves educated on opinions and out to the polls. You just said where the major problem would be with passing such a law. Such a law does not require people to become eduicated about the issues, only that they show up and cast a vote. I bet politicans would be able to win by changing their name to something stupid. "Hey that guy's last name is Turnip-monkey! I'll vote for him!"

mixielicous -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:08:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous quote: ORIGINAL: Lorgrom quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous i hate to be the bubble burster, but were a republic. we elect people to vote for us. Agreeded we are a republic. But even our elected reprensitives have the right to abstain from voting on things while in office. So why remove that same choice from the people? i see your argument, and raise you 'for the people, BY the people' if there are people out there not voting, our country is not a fair representation of its citizens. if people dont want to vote, i find its generally not b/c they dont want to, rather there is nothing to vote on that strikes a cord. while i realize mt current statement does nothing but prove YOUR point, i am sure you can see mine. What if the people don't want to vote? I see your point but a lot of people really don't care or aren't informed enough. I vote in the presidental elections and nothing else. Why? Because I'm not informed enough to make a valid voting selection and frankly... I don't care enough to find out right now. if they dont want to vote, well then we might luck out and get better highways

AquaticSub -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:09:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous thanks for your opinion, but i will hold my tongue and also ask that all other replies please refrain flaming statements like this b/c i am sick of losing threads to Threadkilosis That isn't a flaming statement. It's an opinion that disagrees with your own. I think the notion of requiring people to vote is silly. If you require them to vote then you have to require people to informed about politics because otherwise you will have huge segament of the population voting randomly just to avoid the fine. You try educating people about politics against their will. That would be waste of time, energy and money. And is probably more pointless then starting another "sub vs. slave" thread. as i already stated, the flame comment was not towards missturbation. and if all these people dont vote, then who cares? the govt could certainly use the money [lower taxes, anyone?] You should care because people will turn up to vote just to avoid the fine. And they will vote randomly, without care or concern. That defeats the entire point of voting.

juliaoceania -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:10:44 AM)
Our elites do not want us to vote. Interesting fun fact I learned in political science class... the more people that vote, the more democrats that win. The less people vote, the more republicans win.

AquaticSub -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:11:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous if they dont want to vote, well then we might luck out and get better highways If you want randomly elected leaders...

mixielicous -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:14:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous if they dont want to vote, well then we might luck out and get better highways If you want randomly elected leaders... if people are too lazy to vote Bush out, i hardly think a fine [which would be over much faster than a 4 year term] would motivate them enough to do it. and the ones who do, maybe it opens their eyes a little "hmm, why is it a law to vote now? maybe i should do some research" and they make an educated vote. maybe i just have to much faith in fellow man.

QuietlySeeking -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:22:20 AM)
Rather than requiring the vote, how about the option on every office for "None of the Above". If "None of the Above" wins, all candidates for that office are automatically barred from the run-off election for that year. Another election for those offices must take place within 120 days for that office (with a "None of the Above" option).

BBBTBW -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:23:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous if they dont want to vote, well then we might luck out and get better highways If you want randomly elected leaders... if people are too lazy to vote Bush out, i hardly think a fine [which would be over much faster than a 4 year term] would motivate them enough to do it. and the ones who do, maybe it opens their eyes a little "hmm, why is it a law to vote now? maybe i should do some research" and they make an educated vote. maybe i just have to much faith in fellow man. I am not sure where you got it in your head that people that CHOOSE not to vote are lazy. Some of us don't agree with any of those that are running and choose to vote by not voting. The lesser of the two evils does not a good President make. Can you imagine the mess it would be trying to collect fines from the MULTITUDES that don't vote. Why do you want to make people fit into your mold of what you think the US should be like? Thats like saying there should be one way to conduct yourself with the walls of BDSM...no thanks.

mixielicous -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:27:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBBTBW quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous if they dont want to vote, well then we might luck out and get better highways If you want randomly elected leaders... if people are too lazy to vote Bush out, i hardly think a fine [which would be over much faster than a 4 year term] would motivate them enough to do it. and the ones who do, maybe it opens their eyes a little "hmm, why is it a law to vote now? maybe i should do some research" and they make an educated vote. maybe i just have to much faith in fellow man. I am not sure where you got it in your head that people that CHOOSE not to vote are lazy. Some of us don't agree with any of those that are running and choose to vote by not voting. The lesser of the two evils does not a good President make. Can you imagine the mess it would be trying to collect fines from the MULTITUDES that don't vote. Why do you want to make people fit into your mold of what you think the US should be like? Thats like saying there should be one way to conduct yourself with the walls of BDSM...no thanks. ok, i will give you that some choose not to vote, but not in a million years will i ever believe that the choosers are the majority. my mold? i seem to recall just asking why we dont do it here, not declaring that it is the end all be all only way to get this country running again. edit to add- if there were a "none of the above" option, would you go vote? if the answer is still no, then you are saying nothing with voting by not voting theory.

thompsonx -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:29:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous on another site, on a topic i wont mention b/c it will completely derail this thread, it was mentioned that in australia it is the law to vote. Now i am asking, why isnt it the law here[USA]? IMO, it would be a great revinue for the govt [she said if you dont vote = fine] and it would finally motivate people to get out to the polls.. most of these people who ARE registered and SHOULD be voting. now i can see where some people might be scared of what would happen were every US citizen forced to vote, but if we all have the right to vote, we should not be scared of what might happen when it is finally exercised across the board. mixielicious: I would be all in favor of a law requiring everyone to vote if it also compelled the ballot to list "none of the above" as an option. Thus if none of the above got more votes than any of the above the office would stay vacant till one of the above got more votes than none of the above. thompson

agirl -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:29:52 AM)
I'm in the UK, and we don't have to vote and I'm not sure, to be honest, what I think about having to vote or face a penalty. Being able to vote and having that freedom, is an important thing to me. I may not be hugely interested in the machinations of the political world but my one vote has an impact, however small. It's important to me that my children have seen that voting matters and that they can influence the environment around them and also, to be aware than many people don't have the luxury of this. However cynical I may be about politicians, the things they may implement will affect me and my children, and I appreciate the fact that I have the freedom to speak. I wouldn't feel able to whinge about how things are if I hadn't even bothered to walk a few paces to register my preference. It's easy to throw away a freedom in a place like the UK, where we are pretty well looked after no matter what we do. As you say, it might just motivate some people to take an interest in what happens around them, break the apathy, perhaps, and if not, bring in some revenue. agirl

FirmhandKY -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:32:28 AM)
Ok, I'm with caitlyn on this one. I think it would be better if we had a "voter's test" that you had to pass in order to be allowed to vote. Instead of making voting a burden, it should be a privilege aspired to. Then, as julia pointed out, more republicans would be elected. [:D] FirmKY

Rule -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:34:16 AM)
The only vote that counts is a bullet coming from a shotgun. Do not force people to vote, but rather make it legal to shoot politicians. That will keep them honest and prevent them from fucking up.

mixielicous -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:39:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Ok, I'm with caitlyn on this one. I think it would be better if we had a "voter's test" that you had to pass in order to be allowed to vote. Instead of making voting a burden, it should be a privilege aspired to. Then, as julia pointed out, more republicans would be elected. [:D] FirmKY i think the anxiety associated with needing all 10 Q's answered correctly to have a voice, would defeat the purpose. i do not disagree though, that there should be a way of making sure you arent just randomly selecting. if voting were to become a privilege though, rather than a right, well i can imagine huge inequities in who earns this privilege. who would deem you privileged? the right wing majority? no thanks.

ShiftedJewel -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:40:50 AM)
quote: i see your argument, and raise you 'for the people, BY the people' if there are people out there not voting, our country is not a fair representation of its citizens. if people dont want to vote, i find its generally not b/c they dont want to, rather there is nothing to vote on that strikes a cord. while i realize mt current statement does nothing but prove YOUR point, i am sure you can see mine. I'm pretty sure they don't do that anymore. If they did then what the people had to say would matter, wouldn't it? Anymore we tend to elect people with an agenda as close to our own as possible and hope for the best. Personally I want to hear a politician say he has no real agenda and wants to vote the way his constituants want him to. If he is against same sex marriage but 52% of his "people are for it, then he should vote for it.. "For the people, by the people". More people would get their voices out there, more people would vote or fill out polls if they honestly believed it would make a difference. But right now no one candidate is very convincing when they say they are "for the people"... bull shit, they are in it to get their agenda pushed into law, that's all. I want a candidate that honestly listens to the people and doesn't have his/her head so far up their ass that you need a bull horn to make them hear you. *Jewel*

BBBTBW -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:42:38 AM)
TOM DOBBS (ROBIN WILLIAMS) for President

SweetSarijane -> RE: why isnt it the law here, too? (3/22/2007 7:43:42 AM)
Forcing people to vote, or pay a fine in penalty for not voting, is just removing one more right, and yes I choose to go vote.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875