|
Post by Silmarillion on Oct 30, 2001 10:37:04 GMT -5
Elric, I didn't go deeply into why I didn't vote in the last election, but in order to do so, I would have had to drive several hours, stay the night, drive back, etc...etc. And, honestly...I didn't want EITHER of them in office, so why should I have bothered? It's a right to CHOOSE. I chose NOT to vote in the last election. That's like telling someone who believes in the right to bear arms but doesn't actually own a gun that he/she has no "right" to bear arms because they choose not to bear arms. They believe in the right to CHOOSE to , but CHOOSE not to exercise that right. Does that mean that person should never be allowed to own a gun? Does that mean that person has no right to get upset should the right to bear arms be taken away? No, it most certainly doesn't.
Why the hell should I vote for someone I DON'T want in office? Doesn't make sense.
Now, as for the property holding. Nope. You choose to own property knowing that there are property taxes. That's YOUR choice. If anything, there needs to be a change in policy regarding the property taxes, but most CERTAINLY not a change in policy FORCING people to own property in order to vote. I pay taxes just like everyone else. I don't pay property taxes because I CHOOSE not to own any. I'm really glad the leaders in the government don't feel the way you do, because the day that happens, is the day I change citizenship.
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Oct 30, 2001 11:13:34 GMT -5
OK, thats fine that you dont want to own property Sil. But you should also NOT have the right to raise the taxes of those that in fact, do own property! My point being that for those that own none, being taxed to death, when they are forced to own a taxable asset would be a damn fine lesson in not "shucking off" the bill to other people for the services you demand! Because I choose to own land, shouldnt mean that I should penalized for doing so! I accept reasonable property tax as a necessary evil for services that the county performs for me and my fellow citizens. What I dont accept is the continued school levys voted in by people that dont have to pay for them! For that matter, just about every other levy that has come down the pike over the last ten years! What my point is at its core, Sil, is that if you want equal representation (ala. a vote) you should also have to shoulder the responsibilities equally. I suppose its a differing, "point of view" of how much I want government to do for me. In fact, for me, I want them to stay the hell out of my wallet and to an extent my life! Our government indeed, has a place in every citizens life, but not to the extent that they "run" your life. Also, If people want to get into the charity business they should do so under their own volition, not by forcing the bill on me for it! Before calling me a Scrooge I do in fact do quite a bit of charitable donating, and my wife donates quite a bit of her time to such.
|
|
|
Post by Silmarillion on Oct 30, 2001 11:17:48 GMT -5
I've never voted for any levys, and never will. So, I didn't vote for you to pay more taxes anyway. So there! *tries to remember WTF a levy is* *wanders off to look some shit up online* *realizes she's even happier now that she doesn't have kids and never will*
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Oct 30, 2001 11:24:03 GMT -5
Elric, the suggestion that only rich people should really run the government because they are the ones who pay for it is so wrongheaded, on so many different levels, that it is difficult for me to frame a response without spitting blood ;-) Who said anything about the rich? Are you trying to tell me that because I own some land and a house that I am rich? C'mon now Dio, thats ridiculous! Please do elaborate on it being wrongheaded that people that pay for a service, receive a service? More or less that is whats occuring.
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Oct 30, 2001 11:26:17 GMT -5
I've never voted for any levys, and never will. So, I didn't vote for you to pay more taxes anyway. So there! *tries to remember WTF a levy is* *wanders off to look some shit up online* *realizes she's even happier now that she doesn't have kids and never will* LMAO!!! Here I'll save ya some time Chilly-Chill Sil! Levy= Legalized extortion of tax monies, based on the governments estimated value of your property. PS- I think you'd make a great mom!
|
|
|
Post by Silmarillion on Oct 30, 2001 11:31:19 GMT -5
What my point is at its core, Sil, is that if you want equal representation (ala. a vote) you should also have to shoulder the responsibilities equally. BTW....I don't disagree with this at all. What I disagree with is going back to the class system of property owners having all the say and us "slaves" having none, which is what it basically boils down to. Forcing someone to own property in order to vote is no better than what you are complaining about right now. That's just not right.
|
|
Blade
Slave
Slice and Dice
Posts: 9
|
Post by Blade on Oct 30, 2001 12:50:00 GMT -5
Back to the point. Sil, do you think its fair that property holders (note: Taxable property isnt necessarily a "home") foot the bill for the taxes that the "masses" want? My point was this and I probably should have added more to it. If the local schools want a new levy passed, and were forced to do so via a sales tax, they never would get their money! The average person would bitch up a storm!!! However, they wisely (I think it sucks but at least they are smart enough to know human nature), approach their financial needs with an increase in property tax. In other words, non-property holders "shuck" the bill for the schools off on those that do own property. The end result winds up being that the folks who do own property in areas where they are definitely out voted (ie. Inner cities) head to the suburbs. Now they also go for a plethora of "other reasons" but this is definitely one of them. I live in the suburbs and my property "school" tax is small, about equal to what I pay in state income tax, 1/2 what I pay in city wage tax to a city that won't even let me vote in their elections, and a pitance compared to what I pay to the feds! And besides, the ones who vote down the taxes here are property owners, the ones whose kids are all grown up and moved away and have forgotten what they had for breakfast, let alone what it's like trying to get a decent education for your kids. So, I can't understand how you think it would be right to allow only property owners to vote. There are far more issues out there than school taxes, issues that effect everyone, whether they own property or not.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 30, 2001 13:02:04 GMT -5
Please do elaborate on it being wrongheaded that people that pay for a service, receive a service? More or less that is whats occuring. Here are a few questions for you, because I am not sure I follow exactly what your point or position here is: If I choose not to own or drive a car, but walk everywhere, should I have to pay taxes for roads? If I am a non-violent pacifist, should I have to pay taxes for the absurdly large military that we insist on maintaining? If not, as a practical matter, how are we to divide up taxes between things that we are willing to pay for as individuals, and those that we are not? Awaiting your answers.
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Oct 30, 2001 13:54:28 GMT -5
Erm, to stay with the original question. I actually support the election duty. Otherwise you get the problem the US (and many other countries) are dealing with, a very large part of the population which is politically totally ignorant and/or passive. People who basicly couldn't care less about who's in charge anyway, or at least don't feel they can change anything about it. What I mean is, not having the duty to elect is some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy which only leads to what I just mentioned.
Now, unfortunately this election duty doesn't mean everyone is politically interested, let alone active. But still, it does make a difference in political awareness, IMHO.
Mind you, I'm not talking about what's democratic or not (democracy isn't a doable governmental system anyway), just what I think is best in a republic or parliamentary monarchy or whatever.
And Sil, choosing not to vote doesn't make sense. If you want to protest against the louzy candidates, vote blanco or invalid. Then you're making a statement!
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Oct 30, 2001 13:58:21 GMT -5
Dio : Yes, Yes and N/A. Everyone pays for everyone else, it's as simple as that if you want to maintain the luxury life we're having.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 30, 2001 14:01:07 GMT -5
Oh yes, I forgot to address the original issue. Thanks for the reminder, LB ;-)
I think a mandatory voting requirement for everybody is a terrible idea.
After all, they are not forced to educate themselves or make in any way a good or intelligent choice.
What would a mandatory requirement achieve except a situation where every ignoramus in the country stood in the voting booth, going "eenie meenie minie moe" as a method of selection?
I agree with and repeat what Pedro said earlier. If people aren't interested enough in the issues to vote volutarily, better for all concerned if they stay the hell out of the voting booth and leave the choices to the people who are.
|
|
|
Post by Falkirk on Oct 30, 2001 15:40:49 GMT -5
Our president isn't elected by popular vote, unfortunately. They need to do away with that damn electoral college BS. I agree that the electoral college is problematic, but it does help one problem: that of recounts. If we just had a nationwide popular vote, what would happen if the result were so close (as it was last year) that the losing candidate challenged the count? We'd have to recount every vote in the country! At least with the electoral college system you can limit it to recounting the votes in a given state. There may be a better way to do it, but I'm not sure what that might be.
|
|
|
Post by Falkirk on Oct 30, 2001 15:48:02 GMT -5
Now, unfortunately this election duty doesn't mean everyone is politically interested, let alone active. But still, it does make a difference in political awareness, IMHO. So, LB, are you saying that if voting were mandatory, more people would be motivated to educate themselves about the issues and the candidates? I don't know if I agree. I think I agree with Pedro. Too many people vote for such lame reasons, that it might be better if fewer people voted. I don't think people should vote just because they think it's their "civic duty." If they want to do their civic duty, they should study the issues and the candidates first, and THEN vote.
|
|
|
Post by Nachtrafe-Tyrant Jr on Oct 30, 2001 16:46:54 GMT -5
I agree that the electoral college is problematic, but it does help one problem: that of recounts. If we just had a nationwide popular vote, what would happen if the result were so close (as it was last year) that the losing candidate challenged the count? We'd have to recount every vote in the country! At least with the electoral college system you can limit it to recounting the votes in a given state. There may be a better way to do it, but I'm not sure what that might be. Hmmm...Awesome issue Maigin! I'm going to have to come back later and jump into this. I dont have time for a long post now. Just wanted to touch on this specific issue. Sil. The Electoral college is not BS. It was a system that was founded to fulfill a very real need. And, even though that particular need is gone, there still exists a need for the college. But, I do agree that it needs revamping and modernization. Probably the most equitable way I have heard of doing it is basically making it representative. If, for example, your state has 10 Electoral votes and 60% or your population votes for cantidate A, 30% for cantidate B and 10% for cantidate C then the electoral votes should be divided that way: Cantidate A: 6 Electoral Votes Cantidate B: 3 Electoral Votes Cantidate C: 1 Electoral Vote Simply giving the person who gets the largest portion of the vote all of the Electoral votes is insipid. In California, for example, Gore only got about 45% of the vote. Bush got about 30%, and Nader got about 10%. The rest was scattered amongst 3rd party choices(usually is in CA). So in that context, I can fully agree that the current Electoral College needs work. But, in no way should it be abolished.
|
|
|
Post by Silmarillion on Oct 30, 2001 17:04:12 GMT -5
But, in no way should it be abolished. Why not?
|
|