PDA

View Full Version : Linda declared winner. Can we please push for voting Registration exams?!




XxNeXuSxX
08-10-2010, 07:58 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2010/by_state/CT_US_Senate_0810.html?SITE=CTHARELN&SECTION=POLITICS


Pitiful. At least Peter is doing better than the polls suggested. But the ignorant mass is just too much to overcome; no matter their turnout.

carlos1215
08-10-2010, 08:08 PM
A wise man once said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a great man to be discovered by an election."

The brain dead lazy rabble of CT have just confirmed this fact...

unfriggin believable.....a man of Schiff's intellectual stature and character gets wiped out by a sleazy wrestling promoter.

at what point do we just give up on this election nonsense and resort to justifiable self defense?

K466
08-10-2010, 08:13 PM
There’s definitely something wrong with the fact that people vote without any real knowledge of the candidates. I don’t know what the solution is…

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-10-2010, 08:18 PM
There’s definitely something wrong with the fact that people vote without any real knowledge of the candidates. I don’t know what the solution is…

The system is built for corruption. The way to fix it is to get rid of it in entirity.

libertybrewcity
08-10-2010, 08:22 PM
The system is built for corruption. The way to fix it is to get rid of it in entirity.

No, getting rid of the system is a bad idea. The system can be tweaked to let other candidates have a chance so the people can truly decide. They need to get rid of that dumb convention. That was a major obstacle. Once McMahon was declared the winner it was nearly impossible for any candidate to come back.

XxNeXuSxX
08-10-2010, 08:23 PM
The system is built for corruption. The way to fix it is to get rid of it in entirity.

Wrong... system was built so this exact thing couldn't happen without amendments. Remember the fear of the majority is our problem right now; since the majority is easily manipulated through heuristics.

Two options exist to fix the problem.

1. Force education on the majority (F*CKING VOTING REGISTRATION EXAMS)

2. Overcome and use the ignorant majority just like the rest have. Obviously we have some followers; but the problem is the main target audience is controlled by mass media's heuristics and saturation. People are more likely to vote for someone they feel like is like them then for what they want them to do. Therefore we need a major network to come to our side... this could only be done with a libertarian buying Fox, CNN, or NBC. Who do we know that's a billionaire? I fear that Schiff is the closest thing we have to someone that can get power.

K466
08-10-2010, 08:25 PM
The system is built for corruption. The way to fix it is to get rid of it in entirity.

Sounds good.. but replace it with what?

Dr.3D
08-10-2010, 08:25 PM
Yeah, don't forget to have those exams in both English and Spanish. LOL

MozoVote
08-10-2010, 08:28 PM
After Linda loses (I expect she will), there could be a grudging realization among the CT GOP that their nomination process is too open to carpetbaggers. They will introduce some reforms, if they have any sense.

Legend1104
08-10-2010, 08:31 PM
I think this is nothing a good financial collapse, degraded republic into facist state, and revolution can't fix.

someperson
08-10-2010, 08:36 PM
Who do we know that's a billionaire?
I've heard of one around these parts. The billionaire is going to help us run a prime-time documentary during the 2012 election cycle. Ghemmy has all of the inside information, but he can't reveal it until he gets the word. I think I've already said too much ;)

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-10-2010, 08:42 PM
Sounds good.. but replace it with what?

The Market-place. Every function of Government can be done in the hands of competing private agencies on the market. Guess what. You don't need to get thousands of others -- your vote actually matters in the Market. You can choose what sort of Government you want.

The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills is a good start. Ultimately though, we should continue trying to get libertarians elected, but be honest with ourselves here.

low preference guy
08-10-2010, 08:43 PM
The Market-place. Every function of Government can be done in the hands of competing private agencies on the market. Guess what. You don't need to get thousands of others -- your vote actually matters in the Market. You can choose what sort of Government you want.

The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills is a good start. Ultimately though, we should continue trying to get libertarians elected, but be honest with ourselves here.

thread hijacking.

the philosophy forum is a great place for that discussion.

XxNeXuSxX
08-10-2010, 08:46 PM
The Market-place. Every function of Government can be done in the hands of competing private agencies on the market. Guess what. You don't need to get thousands of others -- your vote actually matters in the Market. You can choose what sort of Government you want.

The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills is a good start. Ultimately though, we should continue trying to get libertarians elected, but be honest with ourselves here.

People work with self-interest. This isn't possible even for the 10% of the educated to agree to. We must work through this and force more people to become educated to agree with these philosophies that the founders wanted; or play the game better to take control for the good of everyone in the nation (Control the mass).

I hope you're serious about the billionaire, I hope he has a real plan of action that includes mainstreaming. This nation needs it more than ever.

K466
08-10-2010, 08:50 PM
The Market-place. Every function of Government can be done in the hands of competing private agencies on the market. Guess what. You don't need to get thousands of others -- your vote actually matters in the Market. You can choose what sort of Government you want.

The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills is a good start. Ultimately though, we should continue trying to get libertarians elected, but be honest with ourselves here.

Well, of course, in an ideal world...


thread hijacking.

the philosophy forum is a great place for that discussion.

Ok. End of discussion...

Humanae Libertas
08-10-2010, 08:54 PM
I hope Linda loses badly....really really bad. :mad:

Maybe that'll wake people up.

low preference guy
08-10-2010, 08:55 PM
Talking about anarchism.. do you know what's great about Peter Schiff?

Someone once called his radio show and asked what Peter thought of anarcho-capitalism? Peter said "well, I don't know what that is". The caller then asked, "but didn't you read Murray Rothbard". Peter said: "Yeah, I read some of his books. And he is an austrian. So am I, so I agree with him. We are both austrians".

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-10-2010, 08:57 PM
Well, of course, in an ideal world...



Ok. End of discussion...

I don't understand this argument. For 2,000 years the western world had only known tyranny and monarchy. The Founders did the opposite. Why is it so different today?

rp4prez
08-10-2010, 08:58 PM
The system is built for corruption. The way to fix it is to get rid of it in entirity.

The problem I found to really be is that most people don't change their mind even when there is proof of what they are being told is a flat out lie right in front of their face.

If I can find it I remember reading a study about just that. So good luck. ;)

kahless
08-10-2010, 08:58 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2010/by_state/CT_US_Senate_0810.html?SITE=CTHARELN&SECTION=POLITICS


Pitiful. At least Peter is doing better than the polls suggested. But the ignorant mass is just too much to overcome; no matter their turnout.

I am in disbelief since with CT's educated populace I would have thought Schiff would have taken it. Never underestimate the ignorance of the voting populace. Big money and ignorance combined with WWE brand recognition won the day. I suppose that WWE being based out of Stamford helped. Unbelievable.

Despite this loss I would still take McMahon over Blumenthal.

freshjiva
08-10-2010, 08:59 PM
The system isn't broke. Voter examination is not required. Vote counting is not rigged. None of these theories have any bearing as to what happened in this election.

So how can we improve the number of truly informed voters? Simple. Have more televised debates!

Dissemination of information is the best resource to inform the masses, and moderated debates are the best way to achieve this. It clearly wasn't done to its fullest extent in the Connecticut primary.

low preference guy
08-10-2010, 09:04 PM
I am in disbelief since with CT's educated populace I would have thought Schiff would have taken it.

CT's educated populace? What? I don't think that... exists.

kahless
08-10-2010, 09:12 PM
CT's educated populace? What? I don't think that... exists.

It is a fairly affluent middle and upper middle class state - those that pay close attention to the financial industry. Therefore I thought the people who participate in the process would be more in tune and familiar with Schiff rather than McMahon. Also, believed the WWE association would be a negative for McMahon in this state rather than a positive.

low preference guy
08-10-2010, 09:16 PM
It is a fairly affluent middle and upper middle class state - those that pay close attention to the financial industry. Therefore I thought the people who participate in the process would be more in tune and familiar with Schiff rather than McMahon. Also, believed the WWE association would be a negative for McMahon in this state rather than a positive.

Economic well-being has more to do with the economic system than with education. They have a relatively free market because they haven't yet destroyed completely the system inherited from the Founding Fathers. But it's none of their virtue, and they're moving in the opposite direction. The fact that they created the income tax a few years ago proves this.

moonshineplease
08-10-2010, 11:20 PM
Well, it is the same bunch that elected Chris Dodd and Likud lobby joe however many times. Peter did well and hopefully the people he reached will remember the message.

Bman
08-10-2010, 11:23 PM
lol at the post title.

Don't worry in time...

YouTube - ‪Idiocracy - Trailer‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk)

We'll all be too stupid for it to matter anyway.

Kregisen
08-11-2010, 12:01 AM
Force education on the majority (F*CKING VOTING REGISTRATION EXAMS)

That's definitely the only answer.....but is it constitional?

The reason why we have so many corrupted officials is because the majority of voters a.) don't care, b.) don't do research and c..) just vote for whoever benefits them the most

This is why democracy doesn't work.

WaltM
08-11-2010, 12:03 AM
There’s definitely something wrong with the fact that people vote without any real knowledge of the candidates. I don’t know what the solution is…

I do, you just won't like it.

WaltM
08-11-2010, 12:04 AM
That's definitely the only answer.....but is it constitional?


Until women's suffrage and black's suffrage, yes.




The reason why we have so many corrupted officials is because the majority of voters a.) don't care, b.) don't do research and c..) just vote for whoever benefits them the most

This is why democracy doesn't work.

yet we ask people to participate in it.

WaltM
08-11-2010, 12:06 AM
lol at the post title.

Don't worry in time...

YouTube - ‪Idiocracy - Trailer‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk)

We'll all be too stupid for it to matter anyway.

this is NOT funny (not in the real sense, it's so true), I don't blame you for finding humor in a sad reality though.

I think Idiocracy is THE movie that puts to rest hopes for democracy & equality

iFollowPeterSchiff
08-11-2010, 02:26 AM
Wrong... system was built so this exact thing couldn't happen without amendments. Remember the fear of the majority is our problem right now; since the majority is easily manipulated through heuristics.

Two options exist to fix the problem.

1. Force education on the majority (F*CKING VOTING REGISTRATION EXAMS)


That's definitely the only answer.....but is it constitional?

The reason why we have so many corrupted officials is because the majority of voters a.) don't care, b.) don't do research and c..) just vote for whoever benefits them the most

This is why democracy doesn't work.

The last thing we want is the government deciding who can vote and who can't. They'll just rig the examines to further cement their stranglehold. Imagine a question like this on the exam: "What color were Lindsay Lohan's fingernails painted on the day she was sentenced to jail?"


Restore the Constitution's built-in balance and safe-guards between the people, the federal government, and the states by repealing the 17th amendment. Term limits and a balanced budget amendment would also help with the buying votes problem.

AdamT
08-11-2010, 02:35 AM
I think this is nothing a good financial collapse, degraded republic into facist state, and revolution can't fix.

Exactly. Sad, but a collapse is one of the only things that will shock the dumbed down masses out of their comatose state.

crazyfacedjenkins
08-11-2010, 03:26 AM
In the book How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't by Irwin Schiff, he advocates a poll tax. On that note, notice at all the straw polls where one must pay to participate, Ron Paul wins by a huge margin. Something to think about.

Nate-ForLiberty
08-11-2010, 03:53 AM
a poll tax and voter registration exam are not the direction you want to go with this. Yeah, at first you'll silence the voice of the retards you abhor, but eventually the PTB will silence you (again) and with greater ease.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LrpRatFud8g/SM0ulAcS2ZI/AAAAAAAAA1E/uZE_8d78z1U/s400/BLAZING+SADDLES.bmp


you can't legislate away stupidity.

Kregisen
08-11-2010, 04:34 AM
The last thing we want is the government deciding who can vote and who can't. They'll just rig the examines to further cement their stranglehold. Imagine a question like this on the exam: "What color were Lindsay Lohan's fingernails painted on the day she was sentenced to jail?"


Restore the Constitution's built-in balance and safe-guards between the people, the federal government, and the states by repealing the 17th amendment. Term limits and a balanced budget amendment would also help with the buying votes problem.

That's a good point...it could definitely get flawed.

However I am liking this poll tax idea.....it would get rid of everyone who doesn't give a shit or doesn't do research beforehand.

That and term limits (if theres term limits you won't have people like Linda spending $20 million to get elected) and maybe even reduced salaries would do a LOT to help this crisis.

iFollowPeterSchiff
08-11-2010, 12:56 PM
That's a good point...it could definitely get flawed.

However I am liking this poll tax idea.....it would get rid of everyone who doesn't give a shit or doesn't do research beforehand.


A poll-tax (as with any tax) is a terrible idea. You've seen how the government has twisted the income tax. Why would we want to give them even more taxing powers?

Putting aside all the legal issues/challenges, just think about what's going to happen. The progressives are going to scream that it unfairly hurts the poor so they will enact a progressive poll tax. "Poor people" will likely vote for free, while "rich" people will probably have to fork over a huge amount of money to vote. Meanwhile, the government will probably allow government workers to vote for free as part of their benefits in the guise of those 'poor public servants' (ignoring they earn twice as much as their private sector counterparts), only to exacerbate the public vs private distraction gambit that the politicians are running now. Then the unions are going to come in, and they will probably pay for all their members to vote. Their lobbyists will prevent this from being declared illegal using the thinly veiled guise that it is just money returned from their union dues.


and maybe even reduced salaries would do a LOT to help this crisis.

Salaries aren't the biggest problem. The problem is that the government benefits are incentivized to encourage people to stay in government for the rest of their life. They do this with promises of huge benefits (that they don't actually do the accounting for and can't pay for which is why we're in a mess). And for regular public workers, they artificially distort the pay scales based on length of service where you make peanuts when you first join, and then the pay+benefits balloon after you hit certain year-based milestones.

Peter's idea of making government workers (particularly legislators) take pay-only and give no benefits/pension is brilliant.

libertybrewcity
08-11-2010, 01:03 PM
A poll tax isn't constitutional I would think. I know states can control their own elections, but isn't everyone entitled to one vote without interference? The courts would likely strike these laws down because they would be a disadvantage to the poor and middle class during recessions especially.

An poll test/exam is an interesting idea and I have always liked the idea. I just wonder what the blowback would be from it.

Kregisen
08-11-2010, 03:13 PM
A poll-tax (as with any tax) is a terrible idea. You've seen how the government has twisted the income tax. Why would we want to give them even more taxing powers?

Putting aside all the legal issues/challenges, just think about what's going to happen. The progressives are going to scream that it unfairly hurts the poor so they will enact a progressive poll tax. "Poor people" will likely vote for free, while "rich" people will probably have to fork over a huge amount of money to vote. Meanwhile, the government will probably allow government workers to vote for free as part of their benefits in the guise of those 'poor public servants' (ignoring they earn twice as much as their private sector counterparts), only to exacerbate the public vs private distraction gambit that the politicians are running now. Then the unions are going to come in, and they will probably pay for all their members to vote. Their lobbyists will prevent this from being declared illegal using the thinly veiled guise that it is just money returned from their union dues.



Salaries aren't the biggest problem. The problem is that the government benefits are incentivized to encourage people to stay in government for the rest of their life. They do this with promises of huge benefits (that they don't actually do the accounting for and can't pay for which is why we're in a mess). And for regular public workers, they artificially distort the pay scales based on length of service where you make peanuts when you first join, and then the pay+benefits balloon after you hit certain year-based milestones.

Peter's idea of making government workers (particularly legislators) take pay-only and give no benefits/pension is brilliant.

Good lord why do you have to make so much sense and wake me from my wet dream?


Another option is to only allow property owners to vote.....isn't that how it was 100+ years ago?

Bman
08-11-2010, 03:21 PM
What always disappoints me about the election process is the direct conflict of interest of people who are dependant on Government for their livelyhood.

When you think about it if more than 50% of a population becomes dependant on Government there is a 0% chance of eliminating anything Government until it collapses.

We've made some victories this year that makes me believe there still may be a chance for the future of this country but I'm certainly not holding my breath on the matter.

iFollowPeterSchiff
08-11-2010, 03:21 PM
Good lord why do you have to make so much sense and wake me from my wet dream?


;)



Another option is to only allow property owners to vote.....isn't that how it was 100+ years ago?

Have we learned nothing from the housing bubble & collapse? The government was actively transferring wealth from responsible savers to debtors (who can't afford to pay back the loans). All the responsible people that we want voting were renting.

XxNeXuSxX
08-11-2010, 10:19 PM
I don't understand how a Constitution test could include a question on Lindsay lohan.


It's pretty straight forward: If you are to vote, you must pass an examination that requires you to know EXACTLY the job the federal candidate is designated on the Constitution, and you MUST know the amendments afterward.

There isn't room for corruption, it's an exam on the Constitution precisely. Let's not bother with how much you did on candidates, but whether you know what the hell their god damn job is.

iFollowPeterSchiff
08-12-2010, 02:01 PM
I don't understand how a Constitution test could include a question on Lindsay lohan.


It's pretty straight forward: If you are to vote, you must pass an examination that requires you to know EXACTLY the job the federal candidate is designated on the Constitution, and you MUST know the amendments afterward.

There isn't room for corruption, it's an exam on the Constitution precisely. Let's not bother with how much you did on candidates, but whether you know what the hell their god damn job is.


Somebody posed example questions somewhere, such as:
Who is the current President?
Who is the current Vice President?
Who is the current Speaker of the House?

These aren't constitutional questions. (To my knowledge, nowhere in the constitution do the names Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi appear in the Constitution.) These are current events questions. My point was then the government could easily manipulate these questions to favor particular demographics. The Lohan question would skew towards the youth Democrat vote. Alternatively, you might ask a Lawrence Welk question to skew to an older demographic.

As for actual constitutional questions, I have no doubt politicians will find ways to manipulate those too. They've already destroyed the meaning of the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause.

Did you ever see that Simpsons episode where Apu takes the citizenship test? When asked 'What caused the Civil War?', he started enumerating a long list of issues. The tester got impatient and told Apu, 'Just say slavery'. But imagine crafty politicians rigging the test where multiple answers are technically correct, but there is only one official answer which happens to be aligned with the ideology of the particular politician currently in power to filter out only votes that support them.

If you try to get around this by keeping the question dead simple, then there are other things that can be done to easily circumvent the test. First, people will argue that everybody needs to get the same question for fairness. And then it will be argued that one election is unfair because a question was harder than the last question. This leads into preset, static questions that everybody will know ahead of time. Then people only need to bring in a cheat sheet with the answer prewritten or memorized.

Trying to fix this is a waste of effort because it is the wrong approach. Giving the government more control of the process is the wrong way to attack the problem. It should be the people constraining the government, not the other way around. For example, H.R. 450: Enumerated Powers Act is a better approach (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h450/show)

Rather than constraining the people, this tries to constrain the politicians.

I would like to see these things have a lot more teeth though. I'm perplexed by this attitude. If you do something illegal, you go to jail. But If you do something unconstitutional, it's ho-hum/shrug-your-shoulders and do it anyway. The Constitution is our highest law, yet there is no penalty for violating it.

I would like to add the threat of imprisonment and punitive damages to politicians that vote for laws that are ruled unconstitutional. You might even make it a case for treason. This would make them think twice about yielding power recklessly. I would also add a requirement in something like HR450 where they swear they read and understood the bill so they can't get off on technicalities when they are tried. You can get them on perjury instead in this case.

Include Thomas E. Woods proposed amendment that allows laws to be declared dead if 50% of the states' attorney generals deem a law unconstitutional, and we will restore checks and balances to the system without giving the government more ability to manipulate us.

XxNeXuSxX
08-12-2010, 03:44 PM
Somebody posed example questions somewhere, such as:
Who is the current President?
Who is the current Vice President?
Who is the current Speaker of the House?

These aren't constitutional questions. (To my knowledge, nowhere in the constitution do the names Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi appear in the Constitution.) These are current events questions. My point was then the government could easily manipulate these questions to favor particular demographics. The Lohan question would skew towards the youth Democrat vote. Alternatively, you might ask a Lawrence Welk question to skew to an older demographic.

As for actual constitutional questions, I have no doubt politicians will find ways to manipulate those too. They've already destroyed the meaning of the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause.

Did you ever see that Simpsons episode where Apu takes the citizenship test? When asked 'What caused the Civil War?', he started enumerating a long list of issues. The tester got impatient and told Apu, 'Just say slavery'. But imagine crafty politicians rigging the test where multiple answers are technically correct, but there is only one official answer which happens to be aligned with the ideology of the particular politician currently in power to filter out only votes that support them.

If you try to get around this by keeping the question dead simple, then there are other things that can be done to easily circumvent the test. First, people will argue that everybody needs to get the same question for fairness. And then it will be argued that one election is unfair because a question was harder than the last question. This leads into preset, static questions that everybody will know ahead of time. Then people only need to bring in a cheat sheet with the answer prewritten or memorized.

Trying to fix this is a waste of effort because it is the wrong approach. Giving the government more control of the process is the wrong way to attack the problem. It should be the people constraining the government, not the other way around. For example, H.R. 450: Enumerated Powers Act is a better approach (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h450/show)

Rather than constraining the people, this tries to constrain the politicians.

I would like to see these things have a lot more teeth though. I'm perplexed by this attitude. If you do something illegal, you go to jail. But If you do something unconstitutional, it's ho-hum/shrug-your-shoulders and do it anyway. The Constitution is our highest law, yet there is no penalty for violating it.

I would like to add the threat of imprisonment and punitive damages to politicians that vote for laws that are ruled unconstitutional. You might even make it a case for treason. This would make them think twice about yielding power recklessly. I would also add a requirement in something like HR450 where they swear they read and understood the bill so they can't get off on technicalities when they are tried. You can get them on perjury instead in this case.

Include Thomas E. Woods proposed amendment that allows laws to be declared dead if 50% of the states' attorney generals deem a law unconstitutional, and we will restore checks and balances to the system without giving the government more ability to manipulate us.

You still misunderstand my point. We know that Congress has ruined the Constitution and people interpret it to how they want. The point of is it would follow EXACT clauses and WORDS so there is no possibility of skewing it. Like I said, make it irrelevant to how much research people did on current candidates; as long as they know the exact job duties and qualifications of the person they are choosing to elect as designed.

With this, people are forced to WRITE DOWN that being a "good leader" or "cares about people like me" is nowhere to be found.

Kregisen
08-13-2010, 12:20 AM
How about this.....


We have a multiple choice test, say 10 questions.....NO INTERPRETATIONS (so it can't be flawed), just word for word questions i.e.:

"Article 4 section 3 states...." with A, B, C and D answers. If you get more than half wrong, your vote doesn't count.


This will mean people will HAVE to read the Constitution and memorize some of it...and it's not asking for interpretations, just the ACTUAL wording.




I can almost guarantee someone like Ron would become President fairly easily.

iFollowPeterSchiff
08-14-2010, 05:03 AM
How about this.....
We have a multiple choice test, say 10 questions.....NO INTERPRETATIONS (so it can't be flawed), just word for word questions i.e.:

"Article 4 section 3 states...." with A, B, C and D answers. If you get more than half wrong, your vote doesn't count.


This will mean people will HAVE to read the Constitution and memorize some of it...and it's not asking for interpretations, just the ACTUAL wording.


No thanks. I don't wish to have my fourth amendment rights further violated by having poll workers strip search me to find my pocket Constitution. The airport is bad enough.

jmdrake
08-14-2010, 07:01 AM
1. Force education on the majority (F*CKING VOTING REGISTRATION EXAMS)


Sorry, but even with a "voter registration exam" Peter still would have lost. I mean really, what are you going to put on your exam? "Do you know the names and positions of all of the candidates"? Well that's the job of the candidates. And you'd have to have people take this stupid exam every election. Besides the powers that be would write the exam so it would only serve to entrench their power more. This is a worse idea than the so called "fairness doctrine". Besides, some of the most educated people in the country are committed socialists. If we had these so called exams than both Peter and Rand would lose.

jmdrake
08-14-2010, 07:11 AM
I don't understand how a Constitution test could include a question on Lindsay lohan.


It's pretty straight forward: If you are to vote, you must pass an examination that requires you to know EXACTLY the job the federal candidate is designated on the Constitution, and you MUST know the amendments afterward.

There isn't room for corruption, it's an exam on the Constitution precisely. Let's not bother with how much you did on candidates, but whether you know what the hell their god damn job is.

And at the end of the day the voter knows the constitution backwards and forwards, and he has no idea who your preferred candidate is or what he stands for, what difference does it make? Really? Voter goes into poll both after passing test, sees McMahon, Simmons and Schiff. Unless he knows Schiff's positions, his knowledge of the constitution will not help him in making the "right" decision. Plus you are also assuming that people who've read and can recite the constitution will interpret it the way you like. I have news for you. That ain't so. Do yourself a favor. Go to any law school in the country and talk to 2nd or 3rd year law students. I'm willing to bet they can pass your little test with flying colors. Then ask them who they plan to vote for in 2012 and why. Don't forget that Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor.

If everyone had to take your test, you'd lose a lot of voters right after they read "promote the general welfare" was actually in the constitution and assumed that meant the New Deal and Great Society programs were not only constitutional, but constitutionally mandated.

2young2vote
08-16-2010, 10:20 PM
I seriously doubt an exam would change the results. But I am glad he did so good. I was expecting just a couple percent, but 23% is actually great for a first time run in my opinion.

G-Wohl
08-16-2010, 11:15 PM
I support a system whereby the Representatives are in charge of nominating the Senators. Such a system promotes an aware public, who need to stay current on the issues, due to the 2-year terms of Representatives.

Today, we have a generally rebellious House and a rather sneaky, malicious Senate. (Remember how no GOP Representative voted for the stimulus, while several GOP Senators did?) If Representatives and Senators are on the same page, they get along better. If they get along better, they are more prone to devise strategies to pass agreeable legislation.

This way, if the voters have the will to implement a political change, the process can be done a lot easier. If the voters remain passive, those who actually care about the issues will be constantly fighting, resulting in a gridlock similar to what we have now.

To me, the down sides are equivalent to what we have now, if not significantly minimized, while the up side potential far exceeds the present system.

The question should be how to minimize the destructive tendencies of Democracy, while fully protecting the individual rights of American citizens. I think that a system which encourages political participation and education, while denying nobody from their right to vote, is the best method.

Kregisen
08-20-2010, 01:51 AM
No thanks. I don't wish to have my fourth amendment rights further violated by having poll workers strip search me to find my pocket Constitution. The airport is bad enough.

Damnit touché