Disfranchisement and intimidation tactics

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
I know it always has been and will always be, but it doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. Just my opinion. But then I've always been a big fan of the concept that the president be chosen randomly from a pool of people that have somehow been deemed qualified to do it. And even being the repug that I am, Palin wouldn't have been in that pool

Why do you consider yourself so informed?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
Geeze MrFun, having a bad week?
Of course civil rights aren't based on a person's intelligence.

But maybe voting is one aspect that should be take that into account. You see these quotes by southern rednecks saying they're not voting for Obama because he's a muslim baby killer and you have to wonder.

Maybe if you had to prove that you had a clue what was going on there wouldn't be the smear tactics you see used in almost every campaign now. Most of the campaigns are targeted to people that have no idea what the candidates actually stand for and only hear about them through attack ads. Maybe if the people took 30 minutes and read through a variety of endorsements (while they are somewhat biased, at least focus on the candidates positives instead of focusing on the made up negatives) they would be represented better. Maybe the quality of politicans would improve.

Every year it gets worse, the TV smear campaigns are all you ever see any more.

But while I realize that there no test would be fair and most systems to exclude idiots from voting wouldn't work and besides it being totally unconstitutional, it would be interesting to see if campaigning would change if this was the case.

How about the stupid, onerous literacy requirement that so many Southern states had in the late nineteenth century to qualify people for voting? Would this be a good way to protect the right to vote only for "intelligent" people?

[rah]

Geeze, the least you could do is read my posts.
I never said anything about literacy requirement, and even said that no test would probably be fair.

[rah]

Originally posted by Agathon


Why do you consider yourself so informed?

Maybe not the most informed but well above average.
I watched most of the debates.
I read at least one newspaper a day. (most of it anyway)
I watch different news stations on TV to get different views.
I've done online searchs to look at voting records and other general background information.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I read almost every political thread at APOLYTON and watch every comment I make diced by a wide variety of posters.

Kidding aside, if every US voter did half of what I did, I think we'd have better government.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
Geeze, the least you could do is read my posts.
I never said anything about literacy requirement, and even said that no test would probably be fair.

Well if you don't wish to require some form of intelligence test for voting rights then I guess our country is safe for now.

[Arrian]

Wait, so they're NOT going to charge the person responsible for those fliers in Virginia?

What. The. ****?

-Arrian

[Agathon]

I'm puzzled

Originally posted by rah

Maybe not the most informed but well above average.
I watched most of the debates.

They were debates in almost the same sense that the WWE is "fighting".

I read at least one newspaper a day. (most of it anyway)

That is not helping your case. Newspapers are awful.

I watch different news stations on TV to get different views.

Worse than the papers. All full of lies.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I read almost every political thread at APOLYTON and watch every comment I make diced by a wide variety of posters.

Kidding aside, if every US voter did half of what I did, I think we'd have better government.

Really? That's a very liberal attitude. It has long been hoped (and it's kind of my guy's fault, although he didn't endorse the idea) that the education of everyone is the answer to our political problems. I no longer believe this. The population now is much much better educated than it has ever been in history, and yet the results of elections have followed a downward trend in the developed democracies. The education claim needs to be looked at very hard).

[rah]

Gee you ignored my online searches.
SO you think all my other methods suck, so I'd be interested in hearing how you think people should inform themselves.
General Education isn't necessarily the answer since the issues and candidates are continually changing. Research is required for each new election. But I'll admit that a college graduate is more likely to be aware of the majority of issues and not be part of the Obama is a muslim baby eater crowd. If all those people were educated maybe it would be different. I'd also like to see proof that the population now is better educated in general.

[BeBMan]

Read Poly

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
Gee you ignored my online searches.

I guessed they were searches of newspapers and TV, or think tanks or blogs. Or did you actually troll through government sites looking at every single vote?

SO you think all my other methods suck, so I'd be interested in hearing how you think people should inform themselves.

Naturally, I don't, since I don't really believe in democracy. But if I did, I would not see the problem that way. Assuming that it is a matter of voters informing themselves is to assume that learning is like filling up a jar. I guess the image is of us standing with open gobs at the bottom of Niagara Falls.

But genuine learning requires the operation of a critical faculty on received information. That is what our societies have an almost complete lack of, so it is no wonder the decisions made are so bad, or that the news media are content to peddle ****. This is what happens when you live in a neoliberal society that has essentially abolished the concepts of objective truth and knowledge (they call it "preserving individual freedom" to make it seem more palatable, but it doesn't change the facts).

General Education isn't necessarily the answer since the issues and candidates are continually changing. Research is required for each new election. But I'll admit that a college graduate is more likely to be aware of the majority of issues and not be part of the Obama is a muslim baby eater crowd. If all those people were educated maybe it would be different. I'd also like to see proof that the population now is better educated in general.

None of this makes any difference. Most college graduates, be they liberal or conservative, accept the fundamental ideas that inform our society. At the same time, they complain bitterly about the bad outcomes. As usual, it is the last thing that people are willing to give up that is what is really causing the problem. It's the same as people who complain about consumerism and then buy organic vegetables or go on "cool and alternative" holidays. Apparently, they aren't mirror owners.

For all of us, it is that we have a warped and insane conception of freedom. When the Islamists and other religious fanatics point this out, it turns out that it's the one true thing they are saying (and when I make the same argument on this forum, without the religious baggage and hiding the true consequences, even the tories agree with me). If you love dark humour, as I do, this is extremely funny in its own peculiar way.

Loife... it's hilarous, it is...

[chequita guevara]

There's already a thread on this!

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181298

[MrFun]

That thread was started by a commie.

[chequita guevara]

And is therefore more objective than your thread.

[Blaupanzer]

Lock this thread! Shift this to the Commie thread!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He's a Chicagoan. He's learned to accept it. In fact he can probably make a few good guesses what it will be like for the rest of us having a disciple of Daley on the world stage if he wins.

"Disciple of Daley"? OBama was 14 and lived in Hawaii when Daley died in 1976.