Compulsory voting is a good thing.

That begs, not answers the question. Voting was a given but your exact statement was: "...then it is your civic duty to become informed or abstain from the election to let actual informed people decide." My question is what are the informed going to decide that the uninformed cannot?

 

How?

 

On another thread there were two, attributing an Adams quote to Madison and a quote to Jefferson that he never made, both source problems. But here we have the Ben Franklin quote which is out of context, another source problem. The true context is:

 

I agree that those are all problems with the current system but I am talking about REFORMING it to eliminate those issues and make it more open and democratic nationwide so that there won't be the problems that we face today.

 

Thank you for your post. I will be placed in the round file for consideration.

 

I have to say it again

I like that we only have a prime minister. Party can dump them at any time

 

I don't know if we worry about freedom as much as US citizens do. Perhaps we are terribly shackled and oppressed , and just don't realise it.
No, don't think so.

 

At the last election there was a 6% informal vote. 94% of other voters made a vote that counted, so whether they were lazy or uninterested I don't know.

 

What was his preferred method?

 

They should decide who the leaders should be. If you are uninformed then you should voluntarily abstain from that decision until you can make a good choice. Are you having trouble understanding what I am saying?

 

What is absurd is to claim that there are NO responsibilities that apply to individual rights which is exactly what you are doing!

 

It evens out
At least everyone has a say

But the bottom line is if we were not made to vote we would end up with only 5 people in the country turning up!!!

Making everyone vote actually SAVES money as we do not have to spend time encouraging people and talking them into it;

 

Why didn't Sanders run as an independent? Ballot access for one thing. Republicans and Democrats receive automatic ballot access, everyone else must go through the dog and pony show of getting on the ballot, petitions, fees etc. Each state has different requirement and laws and different deadlines. After the convention several states deadline to get on the presidential ballot had passed, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Washington all had deadlines of July 2016 or way before.

Ballot access was one of the main reasons the Tea Party opted for attaching itself to the Republican Party. For an independent to get on the ballot he has to state at least a year in advance of the deadlines to get organized and begin work on getting on the ballots.

Sanders was one candidate during the primaries that had a way higher favorable rating than unfavorable. He, Kasich and Rubio were the only three viewed more positive than negative by the electorate as a whole. Whereas independents were constantly giving Trump and Clinton way above 60% unfavorable ratings, they were giving those three positive ratings. At least for most of the primaries and Sanders always was in the positive when it came to independents. I voted for Johnson because of my disdain for both Clinton and Trump. But I would have gladly voted for Sanders, Kasich and/or Rubio also.

I think you are giving the non-political or non-political junkie voters more credit than they deserve. I highly doubt they would take the time to check into all the names on the ballot. You're talking about 45% of the electorate who don't vote now and really don't care or want to vote. Thinking they would all of a sudden develop an interest I think is stretching it.

We've gone to all sorts of ways to making voting easier, early voting, some states mail in ballots etc. Yet when voting was done on one day and one day only with everyone having to go vote at the polls on that one day, election day. In the 1960's and before voter participation was usually above 60%. I really don't think it would make a difference. But I would be willing to try it. I love the way Louisiana does their voting. Jungle primary style on election day, all candidates listed on the same ballot. If no candidate receives 50% plus one vote, then an runoff between the top two 3 weeks since.

In Georgia, if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote, we also have a runoff. That has happened in a couple of our senator elections, but not in any presidential election.

 

Counted, for what?

 

What a freaking lie. The misattribution was about the same thing as I said, while I was tired. Some people aren't like you, sitting on their arse, trying to make a living off trolling people - and obviously being paid for it. Nobody in their right mind would go to that much trouble to harass and intimidate others.

Insofar as context, when dealing with law, Franklin said what he said, but Liberty (regardless of what you apply it to) is still Liberty. If America could be summed up in one word, it would be Liberty.

Now, I've answered your questions. I've been as nice as I can while you are lying about me, taking advantage of a situation, and trolling me for no apparent reason. I've reported these trolling posts and now I'm going to say this to you once.

If you have a problem with me, you need to take it to PM. I'm not obligated to respond to you and you have it all wrong. You don't own me and I'm not your push button monkey. You got butt hurt in that other thread, because even if those mistakes I made were done via stupidity instead of being tired, you still lost the debate. Get over it. I'm not going to engage you in every thread on this board. You simply don't pack the gear to be able to discuss topics in good faith and civilly.

 

French aristocracy, wrote some books after touring America. Kept confusing a republic for a democracy, would have been understood today's confusion.

 

Just wanted to clarify that you understood what you were saying without an assumption on my part so thank you for the clarification.

Good choice, where? When? Looking back over history, would it be fair to say that all those bad choices should be blamed on all those uninformed voters? Do you have any source for the percentage of informed versus informed on the various elections?

 

It would seem your lack of understanding of basic rights would be absurd. To believe that voting is somehow an act of responsibility is even more absurd. To declare that your absurd ideas should be forced upon others takes the crown on absurdity. It is but a trait of the world of moral relativism.

But then I could be mistaken and you can clearly point how even a single "good" master of all the little sheeple and where he led them.

 

Ah yes, such great ideas that have to be enforced by coercion, government. If saving money would be the objective, then how about not having elections. How about determination by duel at a cost of a couple of bullets and a funeral. Results wouldn't be much different except no crying by the loser. And if you televise the proceeding, a sponsor would pay all the cost and the people could be entertained and have confidence in the fortitude of their new leader.

 

As old as I am, I have seen what is known as campaign finance reform make it worst each time one is passed. Politicians pass these things with so many loop holes as to keep the money pouring into their campaigns. Then again, as long as money is considered speech, there is little anyone can do. There's no taking money out of politics. Republicans and Democrats will always have their billions, third parties and independents what little they can raise without all those corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests, etc. as those moneyed folks will be funneling their millions, tens of million to the two major parties.

What would you think about a system that lists all candidates for a particular office by name only with no political party affiliation next to their name. Then if no one receives 50% plus one vote a runoff is immediately scheduled between the top two vote getters. The money advantage would still be there, that isn't about to change.

 

Actually convincing people to vote is what democratic is supposed to be all about. We want both sides to be motivated to try to turn out the vote.

 

That you are mistaken is already a given!

If you believe that rights come without responsibilities then it would be absurd of me to waste my time even bothering to correct your gross misconceptions.

Have a nice day!

 

Personally I would just outlaw all campaign contributions.

If you run for office you submit your name to the state and pay a fee so that your name ends up on the ballot. Public access channels should provide free airtime to all candidates to express themselves and their messages.

Furthermore election campaigns should be limited to a maximum of 2 months from start to finish.

The Election-Industrial-Complex needs to be eliminated from this nation.

 

Government force is a good thing?

People don't vote when they are generally not bothered by much. Lack of voting actually reflects general happiness.