Read 109911 times

  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 1341

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2160 on: September 16, 2020, 05:23:35 pm »
Call me crazy.
I think a system with constant push notifications demanding action and punishments for failing to comply would NOT be enjoyable.
    You're crazy! :wink:
   But no, I agree it wouldn't work in today's society, but we could work up to it.
If people are willing to spend hours everyday browsing other people's inane daily musing on FB, why on earth would they not want to spend a few minutes a day deciding if a policy that directly involves them ought to be implemented?
  If you can like auntie Margeret's rambling soliloquy about her gladiolas, then you can click "Yes", "No", or "Abstain" about whether or not your municipality should provide funding for a planned parenthood facility.

Or we could skip the red tape and people just don't vote and a non-vote is simply not counted, thereby saving tons of bureaucratic red tape and bogging down the criminal justice system with meaningless penalties."Vote 'None of the Above' or we fine/imprison you" is all sorts of stupid.
    Implementing a system that encourages participation rather than trying to suppress everybody who might not vote for the incumbent party seems like a good thing, doesn't it?
Considering the concern regarding the voter suppression tactics currently being employed in the USA, I think that a lot of people would agree.
And why immediately go to the stick? A carrot works just as well, and the two together even more so. Give them a holiday. Link their participation with tax credits, or whatever. Last thing the USA needs is more people in prison.  :sad:
  And speaking of bureaucratic nonsense, the USA (and most other countries, honestly) have the most archaic, inefficient, and vulnerable voting systems imaginable. I mean, mail in ballots? Seriously?  :blank: It's looong past time that we start using online encryption for something other than questionable banking transactions and trading cat memes. We have quantum computers for crying out loud: why are we still using abacuses?




If anything, the compulsive need some people have to bend others to their will to make the world a "better place" has done far more damage than apathy.
I strongly disagree. I think that there are more decent people in the world than evil ones. Sadly, it's just that the bad eggs tend to have much stronger convictions, more ambition, and aren't afraid to do whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals. Apathy is what lets them do this. I'm really sorry (not sorry!  :azn:), but I'm gonna pull a Hitler out of the hat:  the success of his extermination programmes was due more to apathy than to deliberate malice.

Something tells me that if various fledgling democracies forced people to vote at the point of a gun, they would cease very rapidly to be democracies and instead be something else, either through abuse of power or revolt.I'd also point out that being coerced to vote at gunpoint probably carries with it a significant voter intimidation factor of the ruling party.
That example wasn't really mean to be taken literally lol. Replace the gun with a tax rebate if you'd rather.
The point is forcing people to take part in a democracy doesn't undermine it... so long as the people are not being compelled in any other way. Whether compelling somebody to take part in a democratic system will lead to the abuse of power or revolt or whatever is a different argument.
I'd say not forcing people to vote under threat of penalty or imprisonment is democratic and forcing them to do so is anti-democratic. The action of not voting is a democratic act.
No.
Again, people participating in their own governance is the literal dictionary definition of democracy. Encouraging people to vote with carrot and/or stick does not change that: you are encouraging them to participate in democracy.


Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2161 on: September 16, 2020, 08:15:57 pm »
    You're crazy! :wink:
   But no, I agree it wouldn't work in today's society, but we could work up to it.
If people are willing to spend hours everyday browsing other people's inane daily musing on FB, why on earth would they not want to spend a few minutes a day deciding if a policy that directly involves them ought to be implemented?
  If you can like auntie Margeret's rambling soliloquy about her gladiolas, then you can click "Yes", "No", or "Abstain" about whether or not your municipality should provide funding for a planned parenthood facility.
I Disagree. I think people have every right to be interested in what they care about, be it sports, or personal interactions, or politics. Trying to cram everyone into a box of some person's vision of the "ideal citizen" is egotistical, authoritarian, and a bunch of other negative pejoratives. It's up to those individual people what their idealized self is, not up to me to decide what it is, then attempt to compel them into being such a person because I believe I know better than they do.

Spend 12 hours a day watching cat vids and not voting a day in your life for all I care. It's your damn life. More power to you. I don't need you to vote to validate the actions my government is taking or to assuage my guilty conscience that somehow your voice isn't mattering.

Maybe Margaret doesn't care one way or the other, or doesn't want to be on the record as even having abstained. Maybe she just wants to live her life in anonymity and not be bothered. I'll presume she knows how to manage her affairs best.
Quote
Implementing a system that encourages participation rather than trying to suppress everybody who might not vote for the incumbent party seems like a good thing, doesn't it?
I think coercion to vote is not encouragement, it is coercion. Encouragement via voting holidays or tax breaks would be fine.

Quote
Considering the concern regarding the voter suppression tactics currently being employed in the USA
Those claims are rather dubious. Considering black Americans outvoted white Americans when Obama was up for office, it would seem that the issue of voter turnout is one of motivation, not legislation.

As I've said- People who say they can't find the time or money to vote are full of it. If someone called up and offered them guaranteed sex with a hot person of their choice or a free bag of weed or a new PS5, they'd be there in a WIl-E-Coyote puff of smoke. It's like what's his face complaining about the heat. He wouldn't mind the heat if he was on the beach banging 10s and drinking Mai Tais. It's just because he's walking to work in the heat. It's all mindset, not actual circumstance.

Quote
have the most archaic, inefficient, and vulnerable voting systems imaginable. I mean, mail in ballots? Seriously?  :blank:
Careful now, according to some of the people here, mail-in ballots are sacrosanct and suggesting they're any of those things is just a wild conspiracy theory.  :rolleyes: I mean, no organization has a reputation for reliability like the U.S. Post Office.  :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote
I strongly disagree. I think that there are more decent people in the world than evil ones.
Disagree. Everything in our evolutionary history suggests that we mold ourselves (as a whole, obviously there are sociopaths) to the structure of the society around us and its aspiration. The history of human beings has mostly been one of organized conflict bookending extended periods of peace that were usually peaceful because warring organizations were recovering from war or dealing with disease or enjoying disease-related surplus. Now, we may be in a new era where one of continuous surplus means the chances of war are nil and "good" can flourish, but one look around and it seems that humans look for tribal conflict, even in times of unprecedented safety, luxury, health, and so on.

Quote
but I'm gonna pull a Hitler out of the hat:  the success of his extermination programmes was due more to apathy than to deliberate malice.
Disagree. I think a lot of people LIKED it. If you look at other times of putting captives to the sword, the participants tended to be rather jolly about it and enjoying the rape and plunder. People weren't apathetic. They knew what was happening. They actively supported it.

Quote
Replace the gun with a tax rebate if you'd rather
Coercion vs. bribery is a different matter. Bribe the citizens all you want, but leave them free to reject the bribe.

Quote
The point is forcing people to take part in a democracy doesn't undermine it... so long as the people are not being compelled in any other way.
I would say that forcing people to vote DOES undermine democracy. Democracy is both an act and a system. It involves a person making a choice through voting. Now, NOT voting is a democratic act as well. The abstention or "Not Present" vote is a tradition that has existed in democratic systems. Furthermore, the refusal to vote or engage in acts that are seen to grant legitimacy is in our tradition of protest. Now in some cases they fall into civil disobedience, but in other cases there are not.

You think a society that forces people to vote "I abstain" under threat of imprisonment or fines, and if you are going to enforce these rules, then yes, it is at gunpoint, is a society that will stop there?

Anyways, why would we create an entirely new class of criminals? Suppose people refused to vote en masse and then refused to pay any fines en masse? Would you start large scale asset forfeiture? Prison camps? How far does this go and how far are you willing to enforce it?

And for what? Just to get someone to write in "I abstain" or "None of the above"?


Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2162 on: September 16, 2020, 08:35:45 pm »
Doing a quick wiki glance, some arguments seem to jump out-
1) That voting would be compelled speech. I think the act of voting is certainly one of speech and petition. I think people have the right not to be compelled to speak. In fact, our Constitution enshrines the right that no person should be compelled to testify against themselves.
2) This goes back to American vs. European concepts of the state and society. Americans believe that government exists by the consent of the people. That it is the people that form it. That it's existence is to serve the people. Europeans and others tend to believe that people exist to serve the state and its interests. That the state is some sort of supreme, divine entity with some sort of ideal goal or being to which the people are in service of. The individual exists to serve the body politic. This would fall in line with Americans generally seeing voting as a right, not a duty and Old Worlders generally seeing voting as a duty, not a right.

You can even see this in the constitutions of Old World countries vs. America. The right to free speech is something that is granted to the citizens in Old World Countries. Meanwhile in America, free speech is a right that exists in each person as an inalienable right, and the government shall not abridge that right.

I'm trying hard to be fair in this, but I have to say, that I have nothing but contempt for the Old World view of rights and what their nature is and that of government. That being said, there's a lot of overlap and people on both sides of the oceans can and do hold the other's view and across the political spectrum.

3) One other thing is that America has a strong tradition of respecting Conscientious Objection, particularly since America was a home for many pacifist sects that came to America to escape religious persecution, including compulsory service. We respect it for military service, jury duty, and other matters. Likewise, we would respect it for voting. To compel people to vote would be anathema to who we are as a people.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 01:03:14 am by Mr.DeMartino »


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4245

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2163 on: September 16, 2020, 09:05:46 pm »
Voting is a citizen's responsibility. There's no excuse for not voting.

That said, the state should work to make it as easy as possible to fulfill that duty.


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4245

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2164 on: September 16, 2020, 09:14:04 pm »
Quote
He (trump) doesn't know the difference between what's real and what's not real.
Bob Woodward

An apt description of the liar in chief, but a chilling thought that someone with such great power is under the sway of self-delusion.


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4245

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2165 on: September 17, 2020, 03:22:17 am »
FloridaMan protesting mask wearing:

Quote
Its your right to do what you want, like its my right to do what I want, Babcock said.

Nope. "Rights" are not absolute.


  • Arsalan
  • Lord Admin

    • 2042

    • September 18, 2006, 02:00:00 pm
    • Alberta
    more
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2166 on: September 17, 2020, 03:56:41 am »
Biden may lose, but he won't. 
https://REDThanos.com
https://www.facebook.com/arsalan.lavang.9

"My heart bursts into starlight,
like collapsing ecstasy."


  • tylerthegloob
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1653

    • September 28, 2016, 10:46:24 am
    • Busan
    more
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2167 on: September 17, 2020, 07:41:04 am »
America has a strong tradition of respecting Conscientious Objection

more like "if you don't want to fight then pay up"


  • 745sticky
  • Expert Waygook

    • 735

    • March 26, 2020, 01:52:57 pm
    • Korea
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2168 on: September 17, 2020, 08:17:31 am »
Voting is a citizen's responsibility. There's no excuse for not voting.

The two candidates on the ballot are an excellent excuse for not voting


Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2169 on: September 17, 2020, 09:40:46 am »
Biden may lose, but he won't.

Trump will lose, but he wont.  :lipsrsealed:


Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2170 on: September 17, 2020, 09:55:11 am »
The two candidates on the ballot are an excellent excuse for not voting
Fine and/or imprison this man for such an act!


  • tylerthegloob
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1653

    • September 28, 2016, 10:46:24 am
    • Busan
    more
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2171 on: September 17, 2020, 10:27:25 am »
fortunately he could vote 3rd party or write in or something if it was mandatory... anyway i think we all agree that it should be easier to vote


  • 745sticky
  • Expert Waygook

    • 735

    • March 26, 2020, 01:52:57 pm
    • Korea
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2172 on: September 17, 2020, 10:44:41 am »
fortunately he could vote 3rd party or write in or something if it was mandatory... anyway i think we all agree that it should be easier to vote

I thought that every vote for a 3rd party was a vote for Trump


  • tylerthegloob
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1653

    • September 28, 2016, 10:46:24 am
    • Busan
    more
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2173 on: September 17, 2020, 11:02:51 am »
I thought that every vote for a 3rd party was a vote for Trump
who hurt you?


  • 745sticky
  • Expert Waygook

    • 735

    • March 26, 2020, 01:52:57 pm
    • Korea
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2174 on: September 17, 2020, 11:07:34 am »
who hurt you?

The "Ridin for Biden" Facebook page


  • tylerthegloob
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1653

    • September 28, 2016, 10:46:24 am
    • Busan
    more
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2175 on: September 17, 2020, 11:10:25 am »
settle4biden my dude


  • 745sticky
  • Expert Waygook

    • 735

    • March 26, 2020, 01:52:57 pm
    • Korea
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2176 on: September 17, 2020, 11:13:15 am »
settle4biden my dude

whyd you have to go and remind me of that  :cry:


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 1341

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2177 on: September 17, 2020, 11:49:35 am »
I Disagree. I think people have every right to be interested in what they care about, be it sports, or personal interactions, or politics. Trying to cram everyone into a box of some person's vision of the "ideal citizen" is egotistical, authoritarian, and a bunch of other negative pejoratives. It's up to those individual people what their idealized self is, not up to me to decide what it is, then attempt to compel them into being such a person because I believe I know better than they do.
I disagree more and harder.  >:(
We're not talking about perfecting people. That's impossible. Humans are flawed, disgustingly broken things.
We're talking about improving systems of governance (particularly democratic ones) so that they're not the jokes they currently are.
Look at the upcoming elections. Vote for team blue or for team red, what does it matter? Either way you end up with the same sleazy politician pushing slightly different lies. Democratic political systems still need oodles of reform before they can honestly claim to represent their constituents.

Spend 12 hours a day watching cat vids and not voting a day in your life for all I care. It's your damn life. More power to you. I don't need you to vote to validate the actions my government is taking or to assuage my guilty conscience that somehow your voice isn't mattering.
I care, and you ought to as well. Voter apathy is a huge problem, as it goes against everything that democracy stands for. Only 53% of eligible Americans bothered to vote in 2016 -- it's hard to believe that this is the same nation that went to war against the world's biggest super power because they wanted better representation (and, apparently, less tea).



Maybe Margaret doesn't care one way or the other, or doesn't want to be on the record as even having abstained. Maybe she just wants to live her life in anonymity and not be bothered. I'll presume she knows how to manage her affairs best.
No. Margeret needs to ditch her trowel and get her fat, lazy butt over to some place where she can click a button, even if it's only the  "They both suck. I refuse to choose." button.

    Again, this is straying into the realms of opinion, but I feel that yours is not a well informed one. It's been noted time and time again that political participation is a good indicator of how well a democratic system is working. High participation makes things like corruption, graft, and misrepresentation inherently more difficult to get away with. Also, compulsory voting actually *reduces* political apathy. People generally become both more aware and more involved in politics when required to vote.



Those claims [of voter suppression] are rather dubious. Considering black Americans outvoted white Americans when Obama was up for office, it would seem that the issue of voter turnout is one of motivation, not legislation.
Can I call you crazy again?  :smiley:
Every incumbent administration has been caught trying to rig the next election to one extent or another. This current one is no different. Poll-taxes, literacy tests, voter list purges, caging lists, procedure disinformation, limitations on early (and absentee) voting etc etc etc etc have all been used to suppress the votes of demographics that would vote against the incumbent party. All this anti-democratic bs would be greatly diminished if mandatory universal voting was implemented.

   And wouldn't it be nice to remove (a tiny bit of) the sleaze factor from the political process? With voluntary voting, a lot of a political campaign is focused on just getting people to vote. With compulsory voting, you can focus less on the charismatic leader goading people to the polling station, and more on actual campaign promises.

The wiki article on compulsory voting is pretty interesting and does a good job explaining the reasons for and against it. Give it a gander if you have a moment.


As I've said- People who say they can't find the time or money to vote are full of it. If someone called up and offered them guaranteed sex with a hot person of their choice or a free bag of weed or a new PS5, they'd be there in a WIl-E-Coyote puff of smoke. It's like what's his face complaining about the heat. He wouldn't mind the heat if he was on the beach banging 10s and drinking Mai Tais. It's just because he's walking to work in the heat. It's all mindset, not actual circumstance.
I could use a new set of running shoes and a new computer monitor, but I'd settle for a bag of flaming dill crisps. I miss those.

Actually, I'd just settle for being allowed to vote. I've never in my entire life been legally allowed to vote.  :sad:


Careful now, according to some of the people here, mail-in ballots are sacrosanct and suggesting they're any of those things is just a wild conspiracy theory.  :rolleyes: I mean, no organization has a reputation for reliability like the U.S. Post Office.  :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
But have they attained Comcast levels of reliability? Maybe USPS should phone up Cc's customer service line for some pointers so that they can take their game even further!


Everything in our evolutionary history suggests that we mold ourselves (as a whole, obviously there are sociopaths) to the structure of the society around us and its aspiration. The history of human beings has mostly been one of organized conflict bookending extended periods of peace that were usually peaceful because warring organizations were recovering from war or dealing with disease or enjoying disease-related surplus. Now, we may be in a new era where one of continuous surplus means the chances of war are nil and "good" can flourish, but one look around and it seems that humans look for tribal conflict, even in times of unprecedented safety, luxury, health, and so on.
This seems to be an argument in favour of higher levels of political participation. Stop stealing my thunder!  >:(
  Higher political participation leads to reduced political instability, meaning we can keep those nasty bookends at bay!


I think a lot of people LIKED [doing evil stuff]. If you look at other times of putting captives to the sword, the participants tended to be rather jolly about it and enjoying the rape and plunder. People weren't apathetic. They knew what was happening. They actively supported it.
Nonono. Nuremberg clearly illustrated that everybody who ever did anything bad was actually entirely repulsed by it and was only following orders.
But seriously, professional soldiers and folk caught up in the zeitgeist of revolution are hardly similar to the average citizen during a regular electoral period. Very little jollily-violating-other-people's-rights going on during the 2016 elections (on the part of the voters, at least)!


You think a society that forces people to vote "I abstain" under threat of imprisonment or fines, and if you are going to enforce these rules, then yes, it is at gunpoint, is a society that will stop there?
Anyways, why would we create an entirely new class of criminals? Suppose people refused to vote en masse and then refused to pay any fines en masse? Would you start large scale asset forfeiture? Prison camps? How far does this go and how far are you willing to enforce it?
And for what? Just to get someone to write in "I abstain" or "None of the above"?
Well, I mean, this is reductio ad absurdum. Enjoyably so. Thanks!  :smiley:

But seriously, traffic fines encourage people to stop speeding without criminalizing them. Why do you think getting people to vote would take more than that? Do you know something we don't? Will future politicians be even worse than they are today? Is 2020 only the beginning? omg!  :huh: [Runs away]
« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 11:59:02 am by Kyndo »


  • tylerthegloob
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1653

    • September 28, 2016, 10:46:24 am
    • Busan
    more
Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2178 on: September 17, 2020, 12:00:38 pm »
i'm #TeamKyndo


Re: Trump will win in 2020
« Reply #2179 on: September 17, 2020, 01:58:03 pm »
We're talking about improving systems of governance (particularly democratic ones) so that they're not the jokes they currently are.
Look at the upcoming elections. Vote for team blue or for team red, what does it matter? Either way you end up with the same sleazy politician pushing slightly different lies. Democratic political systems still need oodles of reform before they can honestly claim to represent their constituents.
Not sure mandatory voting backed by coercive threat of fines and imprisonment is the answer to any of that. Instead of 55% of the country backing Red or Blue, it'll just be 100% of the country backing Red or Blue and you've just eliminated the justification for 3rd parties.

Quote
I care, and you ought to as well. Voter apathy is a huge problem, as it goes against everything that democracy stands for.
No it doesn't. Voter apathy can be a sign that things are bad, but it can also be a sign that things are good. Anyways, America is a Constitutional Republic, not a mass democracy.

Quote
it's hard to believe that this is the same nation that went to war against the world's biggest super power because they wanted better representation (and, apparently, less tea).
Actually it is. 1/3rd were Loyalists. Another 1/3rd didn't give a shit, they just wanted to be left alone and hoped the various armies didn't roll through and requisition their livestock and grain.

Quote
No. Margeret needs to ditch her trowel and get her fat, lazy butt over to some place where she can click a button, even if it's only the  "They both suck. I refuse to choose." button.
And what happens if Margaret refuses? Fines? Imprisonment? Will the gendarmes be dispatched to her residence to compel her to vote?

Quote
It's been noted time and time again that political participation is a good indicator of how well a democratic system is working. High participation makes things like corruption, graft, and misrepresentation inherently more difficult to get away with. Also, compulsory voting actually *reduces* political apathy. People generally become both more aware and more involved in politics when required to vote.
Even if all of that is true, what damn business is it of yours or mine to compel people to vote through coercive means? PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST TO FULFILL MY IDEALS OF "THE GOOD LIFE". They are free to hold their own views. And if they feel that not voting is a way to express themselves or that they have better things to do, good for f*ing them. Let them go and do that. Why should they waste hours of the only life they have on this Earth voting for one lying scumbag or another? Shouldn't they be able to not participate in this ridiculous farce?

There is ZERO justification for anyone to have the belief inside of them that they need to force people to engage in this act to satisfy their own selfish desires.

Quote
All this anti-democratic bs would be greatly diminished if mandatory universal voting was implemented.
How? North Korea has mandatory voting. All mandatory voting does is rubber stamp El Presidente in an authoritarian regime. And in other countries it hasn't solved gridlock or corruption or given power to the people.

Belgium and Australia are still nominally headed by Monarchs. In Belgiums case, it's an artificial country that goes years at a time without a functioning government and where 40% of the Flemish and 15% of the Walloons would vote to separate from the rest of Belgium.

Quote
ith compulsory voting, you can focus less on the charismatic leader goading people to the polling station, and more on actual campaign promises lies.

Quote
The wiki article on compulsory voting is pretty interesting and does a good job explaining the reasons for and against it. Give it a gander if you have a moment.
Yeah, the arguments for are rather weak, namely the fact that all of the benefits are predicted, yet none have been observed in any of the test cases. There's nothing to indicate that it produces the benefits claimed.

Among the nations that have compulsory voting we have such bastions of human rights and corruption free government as
Argentina
Brazil
Ecuador
North Korea
Peru
Singapore

Quote
  Higher political participation leads to reduced political instability, meaning we can keep those nasty bookends at bay!
Is that necessarily true? Putin and Erdogan have been elected. Brexit and various EU shenanigans have all come with the popular vote. Iraq had mass voting and it quickly degenerated into sectarian conflict.

If anything the most stable regimes tend to be stagnantly corrupt authoritarian ones. I guess you could say they have high political participation because usually everyone is so wound up in the system that everyone is politically active in a sense.

Quote
Very little jollily-violating-other-people's-rights going on during the 2016 elections (on the part of the voters, at least)!
I don't really get how this proves that people are basically good.

Quote
But seriously, traffic fines encourage people to stop speeding without criminalizing them. Why do you think getting people to vote would take more than that?
I fail to see how not voting is a criminal act that should be under the purview of law enforcement.