Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's precisely why, in some circles, universal suffrage is decried as mob-rule. There's a willful and determined push to make the voter-pool more aristocratic... or in other words, to make the system more like a republic and less like a democracy.
In this interpretation, to appeal to the masses and to garner a literal majority, is a fool's errand. The politician who does this, is either lying, in having no intention of carrying out the promises that elicited the majority's vote... or, is binding himself to enacting foolish things, because the crowd is generally foolish and has foolish wants.
In all seriousness, that's what the Electoral College was created for, that that's why Senators were originally elected by the State legislatures rather than by popular vote.
The "civics test" that the Left apparently wants to impose, would create a more elite voter class but other people (or the same ones?) on the Left would abolish the Electoral College. Interesting.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment, which the Right wants, would return control of who is in the Senate, to the States. On the surface that sounds elitist and in the short term would benefit Republicans, but in practice I believe it would cause more voters to pay attention to the "little races" that decide who is in the state legislatures to begin with.
That's precisely why, in some circles, universal suffrage is decried as mob-rule. There's a willful and determined push to make the voter-pool more aristocratic... or in other words, to make the system more like a republic and less like a democracy.
In this interpretation, to appeal to the masses and to garner a literal majority, is a fool's errand. The politician who does this, is either lying, in having no intention of carrying out the promises that elicited the majority's vote... or, is binding himself to enacting foolish things, because the crowd is generally foolish and has foolish wants.
I guess that this can become a question of one's own philosophy regarding other people. If you look around yourself at society and scowl and think that "people" (the "masses" of which pretty much everyone posting here is part) are stupid fools and you don't respect their ability to have any understanding of what is good for them or anyone...then it makes some sort of sense.
I don't feel that way and I never have. Even those I disagree with, no matter how vehemently, I think should be permitted to give consent to be governed by the leaders of their choosing. And as I've said, I want more democracy and not less.
I do think that when it comes to the issues, the things that unfortunately define the parties and shove people around based on what triggery thing they most care about... The needs of different locations and the people in them can vary. Not only by state but the classic urban-rural divide. I think that gun ownership in rural areas makes a lot more sense than it does in a city, for instance, but I think that the voters in various specific areas need to be consulted about what their needs are. And not just in the person of some representative who can very easily lie to benefit themselves, but with direct ballot initiatives.
Very much the way we saw with the marijuana votes. In Colorado, it wasn't as simple as just the state decriminalizing cannabis for recreational use as everyone knows happened a while back...individual CITIES held votes about whether to allow recreational dispensaries to operate in the city limits or not. Colorado Springs voted NO to that. I am glad that the residents of that city had the ability to be heard about it. I don't think that they are fools or that it was mob rule.
But then I have started to also realize that I'm an anomaly. A lot of people have a deep desire for hierarchical structures and figures of authority to tell them what to do. They are able to point to and choose one and say, "Good, he is in charge. I trust him and I'm willing to follow his lead. I am sure he's smarter and better than me and knows what he's doing, and can guide my life better than I can on my own for myself." I've never felt that way in my life. I didn't feel that way about my parents, about any adult around me as a kid even, and I don't feel that way about any other person now.
And so I find it hard to understand the mindset, honestly, of wanting to be led, and of really trusting someone else to know better. I don't think that even the President of the US, no matter who they are, is "better" than me, superior or more worthy to make my decisions for me. They are an equal person with a different job to do, that's all.
I could never have been in the military!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994
In all seriousness, that's what the Electoral College was created for, that that's why Senators were originally elected by the State legislatures rather than by popular vote.
The "civics test" that the Left apparently wants to impose, would create a more elite voter class but other people (or the same ones?) on the Left would abolish the Electoral College. Interesting.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment, which the Right wants, would return control of who is in the Senate, to the States. On the surface that sounds elitist and in the short term would benefit Republicans, but in practice I believe it would cause more voters to pay attention to the "little races" that decide who is in the state legislatures to begin with.
OK so this is interesting. I want to point something out, first of all, that I must preface by saying that I'm guilty of it, too.
"...the Left apparently wants to impose..."
No, pause. One person who is politically leftish, here in this thread, said that. None of us voted to elect him to represent us. It is a comment made by one dude, not some kind of wholesale agenda. I am not for civics tests, though I'd very much like it if we not only made sure that civics was amply covered in public school but also offer (and promote) online and in person (like, at public libraries) refresher courses. The American people need to have every chance to understand our government and how it works. But no tests or barriers to voting. I'm fine with the age being 18, though, and would also be OK with it being a little higher if only because so many young people don't even care to vote anyways. I don't think that it would really be a big deal if they had to wait until 21, but I also just don't think that the difference matters all that much given the low engagement levels that exist.
Here's where I check myself a little. We had one post in this thread that came from a rightward direction that basically said that they support something more like fascism or at least authoritarianism. Now I could let that, in my mind, paint everyone who considers themselves to be rightish, conservative, Republican, any/all of the above... But I think that it's important NOT to do that. My Mom taught me a little something about how you spell the word, "ASSUME"... I prefer to let individuals speak for themselves on what their positions are and why.
I consider myself to align left, but not only do I not agree with having a civics test to restrict voting, I also don't go quite so far as wanting the abolishment of the Electoral College. I do feel that it's important to have some respect for the needs of rural voters that differ very much from the needs of urban voters, even if there end up being far more of the latter. I would if anything prefer that some of the issues that seriously affect people's lives be taken OUT of the hands of not only politicians in DC but even at the state level sometimes, and to fine tune it even further when possible.
If folks in some rural county want to have a pastoral, God Fearing land of white clapboard churches and no abortions and everyone's got a gun for shooting critters, no legal weed and no gay weddings, I may not agree with them but as long as they keep their mandates out of the business of the city dwellers who have opposite positions on ALL of those things then at least citizens will eventually be able to choose where to put down their roots and live their lives.
So long as it's not gone so far as the old "sundown towns" where you can't even pass through without threat to your life if you're "not from 'round here." So to speak.
It's wild to me though that some will complain about "mob rule" but then figure it makes sense for a small minority of the citizens of the country to "rule" over the rest. Who is treading upon whom?
I'm not posting this in the P&OC forum because I don't want name-calling, snark, or comparison with Biden and the Democrats, but some serious answers. If the GOP recaptures Congress AND the presidency in 2024, what would they actually do? I'm curious because the GOP has no recent plarty platform, just what DJT said he wanted in 2022:
During DJT's presidency there were only really three big accomplishments from what I can see: a big tax cut, mainly for the wealthy, establishment of the Space Force, and the appointment of three conservatives to SCOTUS. But no wall along the Rio Grande, no immigration deal for the Dreamers, no repeal of Obamacare, no leadership on the pandemic, no rapprochement with China or North Korea, no lower drug prices
So with or without DJT at the top of the ticket in 2024, what would we see under total GOP control? I'd guess more conservative federal judges for sure, another retrenchment on climate change initiatives, a lot shouting (without any real action) on culture war issues like guns, abortions, and education, and further tightening of immigration, both legal and otherwise. But I can't see any strong economic initiatives coming from the GOP whatsoever.
So what would you expect under total GOP control?
Under the current GOP, culture wars and a weakening of the rule of law to protect Trump.
The GOP held all three branches of government under Bush II and it was tax cuts, stronger defense, etc. (Reagan-style conservatism).
OK so this is interesting. I want to point something out, first of all, that I must preface by saying that I'm guilty of it, too.
"...the Left apparently wants to impose..."
No, pause. One person who is politically leftish, here in this thread, said that. None of us voted to elect him to represent us. It is a comment made by one dude, not some kind of wholesale agenda. I am not for civics tests, though I'd very much like it if we not only made sure that civics was amply covered in public school but also offer (and promote) online and in person (like, at public libraries) refresher courses. The American people need to have every chance to understand our government and how it works. But no tests or barriers to voting. I'm fine with the age being 18, though, and would also be OK with it being a little higher if only because so many young people don't even care to vote anyways. I don't think that it would really be a big deal if they had to wait until 21, but I also just don't think that the difference matters all that much given the low engagement levels that exist.
You are right. It would have been better if I'd said "...apparently some on the Left want to impose...".
This isn't the first time I've heard a Left Winger wish upon a star for a literacy test. Back when Sarah Palin was big, that's when I first heard it. And to be honest, there are some Right Wing anti-Trumpers who also want to impose literacy tests to keep Trump voters out of the process.
As for me, I'll stick with the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book, thanks.
As for me, I'll stick with the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book, thanks.
At the risk of thread drift, I do love me a pithy quote!
"I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University" - William F Buckley Jr.
You are right. It would have been better if I'd said "...apparently some on the Left want to impose...".
This isn't the first time I've heard a Left Winger wish upon a star for a literacy test. Back when Sarah Palin was big, that's when I first heard it. And to be honest, there are some Right Wing anti-Trumpers who also want to impose literacy tests to keep Trump voters out of the process.
As for me, I'll stick with the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book, thanks.
I think that it's way too easy to point with those that one disagrees with and call them stupid or "low information" or even "deplorable." I got pretty frustrated recently when I was listening to a Jon Stewart podcast (I love him) and someone said that the reason that Hillary lost in 2016 was the emails scandal. I wanted to yell and shake that person, or anyone who thinks that. If nothing else, so much about Trump should prove that even scandal after scandal isn't what will win or lose an election.
What's far closer to the mark, was encapsulated in the moment where she so very smugly referred to his supporters as, "deplorables." It's that snooty, elitist, "I am better than you and looking down on you" attitude she had going on, along with her firm place as a creature of the establishment. And the media told us and told us that she had it in the bag and her presidency was a foregone conclusion...that Trump's campaign was just sort of a joke.
Well. The joke was on them (Hillary, the media, the establishment)... America does not take kindly to that smug insulting crap, and were more than ready to take a chance on an outsider. More to the point, a lot of people I knew who would later agonize under the Trump presidency, voted third party because they felt safe doing so. They were horrified by Trump, but unenthusiastic about Hillary, and felt that since she was going to win anyways (the news said so!) they could either not bother to vote or vote third party.
I think that it is a huge and costly mistake when liberals look down on people. Or, really, when anyone does. And having lived in many different circumstances in life, I do not assign more VALUE to the voice of an uneducated person or a poor person...fact is, different walks of life bring different perspectives to the table and everyone has a story. All of the stories make up our culture. All of it has value. And there are forms of wisdom that one can gain from suffering, struggling and surviving that you can never learn in a book, too.
You are right. It would have been better if I'd said "...apparently some on the Left want to impose...".
This isn't the first time I've heard a Left Winger wish upon a star for a literacy test. Back when Sarah Palin was big, that's when I first heard it. And to be honest, there are some Right Wing anti-Trumpers who also want to impose literacy tests to keep Trump voters out of the process.
As for me, I'll stick with the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book, thanks.
Thank you. I am with the poster to whom you are replying--as well as the primary mod for this forum for whom I sing backup here--that we want to keep those types of sweeping generalizations out of this forum. i someone has the urge to declare that "All Democrats want to abort full-term babies" (actually seen with my own eyes on P&OC) or "All Republicans are white supremacists", please remove yourself to the Politics forum.
I did a quick search, however, on whether there was any truth to one group or another wanting the so-called civics test for voting. I found an old USA Today article about putting five basic questions to a group, which included the results by partisanship:
Quote:
In terms of partisanship, Republicans outscored Democrats and independents. Forty percent of Republicans answered all five questions correctly, compared with 35% of independents and 33% of Democrats.
I think that it's way too easy to point with those that one disagrees with and call them stupid or "low information" or even "deplorable." I got pretty frustrated recently when I was listening to a Jon Stewart podcast (I love him) and someone said that the reason that Hillary lost in 2016 was the emails scandal. I wanted to yell and shake that person, or anyone who thinks that. If nothing else, so much about Trump should prove that even scandal after scandal isn't what will win or lose an election.
What's far closer to the mark, was encapsulated in the moment where she so very smugly referred to his supporters as, "deplorables." It's that snooty, elitist, "I am better than you and looking down on you" attitude she had going on, along with her firm place as a creature of the establishment. And the media told us and told us that she had it in the bag and her presidency was a foregone conclusion...that Trump's campaign was just sort of a joke.
Well. The joke was on them (Hillary, the media, the establishment)... America does not take kindly to that smug insulting crap, and were more than ready to take a chance on an outsider. More to the point, a lot of people I knew who would later agonize under the Trump presidency, voted third party because they felt safe doing so. They were horrified by Trump, but unenthusiastic about Hillary, and felt that since she was going to win anyways (the news said so!) they could either not bother to vote or vote third party.
I think that it is a huge and costly mistake when liberals look down on people. Or, really, when anyone does. And having lived in many different circumstances in life, I do not assign more VALUE to the voice of an uneducated person or a poor person...fact is, different walks of life bring different perspectives to the table and everyone has a story. All of the stories make up our culture. All of it has value. And there are forms of wisdom that one can gain from suffering, struggling and surviving that you can never learn in a book, too.
I have always said that was the remark that lost her the election. Insulting about half the people whom you are vying to lead by calling them deplorable is not only a really bad political move, it says something unflattering about your own character. I could not in good conscience vote for either main candidate after that. Of course, throwing my vote to a person with no chance at all of success helped put Trump in office. I know I was not the only one. A good friend, and one who has worked in DC all her life and is utterly disgusted with our political process wrote in Bruce Springsteen in 2016. She's from NJ also.
You are right. It would have been better if I'd said "...apparently some on the Left want to impose...".
This isn't the first time I've heard a Left Winger wish upon a star for a literacy test. Back when Sarah Palin was big, that's when I first heard it. And to be honest, there are some Right Wing anti-Trumpers who also want to impose literacy tests to keep Trump voters out of the process.
As for me, I'll stick with the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book, thanks.
Ironically a quote from William F. Buckley, who was highly educated from Yale and erudite to the point of being a parody of himself.
I have always said that was the remark that lost her the election. Insulting about half the people whom you are vying to lead by calling them deplorable is not only a really bad political move, it says something unflattering about your own character. I could not in good conscience vote for either main candidate after that. Of course, throwing my vote to a person with no chance at all of success helped put Trump in office. I know I was not the only one. A good friend, and one who has worked in DC all her life and is utterly disgusted with our political process wrote in Bruce Springsteen in 2016. She's from NJ also.
I voted for Hillary even though I had a strongly negative reaction to that comment and did not like her, just in a general sense. But I have always said that I had to "hold my nose." I just didn't believe that she truly had it in the bag and that Trump could not win, and I found him to be worse...in a very "race to the bottom" kind of way. I didn't vote for her so much as I voted against him.
I wasn't all that jazzed about Biden either, but once again I voted against Trump...but I'd been saying for a while that if they'd run a literal turnip against him, I'd vote for that. I admit that I am more OK with the job that Biden has been doing than I thought I'd be, though.
And heck, Trump's stated opinions of people like me have hardly been respectful, either. But I guess what has horrified me most about him isn't who he disrespects, but who he respects...generally dictators in countries that have long been America's enemies, if not overtly then at least ideologically.
Bruce Springsteen, hey, if we must choose a Washington "outsider" by all means! Though I'm reminded of the time that a NYC resident told me that David Byrne was the unofficial mayor, and I was jealous. I want him to be my mayor!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
