Career politicans?

Goshin said:

Limiting franchise is something I've thought about at times, beginning when I read Heinlein's Starship Troopers. The novels he referred to as his "juveniles" often had deeper themes than 99% of what is written for mature adults. :mrgreen:

Given how ignorantly and selfishly many people exercise their franchise, I'm not sure it would be the worst thing to limit it a bit.

The key component to me would be that franchise had to be earned, and that the requirements were such that any person who was willing to make some sacrifices and put forth the effort had the opportunity to earn franchise.

This would prevent it from creating a ruling class and a ruled class.

The Heinlein model of having to do two years of "national service" to obtain franchise was not a bad one. In the novel, he noted that anyone who insisted on doing national service was entitled to being accepted, that "if you were blind and in a wheelchair, if you insisted on doing your two years they'd find something you could do, even if it was counting the hairs on a caterpillar by touch." :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Well I do like that idea more then some sort of applitude test at least...


I am just worrisome against even a small mass limiting of voter rights because of what it can grow into.

This also has problems with it basically being a mandatory form of draft to supply voting rights, which does mean that it isn't mandatory though. But since I consider voting is a right, there shouldn't be any artificial barrier for an adult to obtain it.

Also, this system odviously gives prefference to richer individuals, because I am assuming that the 2 years of work will have low wages, or it simply provides for living expences while you are working.
If some rich person doesn't need the money while they work for 2 years to go to college later, then your system isn't fair to people with a lower income. I am sure a system would develope when only the more wealthy can vote, even if there is as motivated and self sacrificing poor.

Dav said:

You could inform the crap out of someone and they're not going to change their mind. Being "informed" means nothing, and "misinformed" voters are not the problem. The problem is people being more loyal to their party than their country.

Click to expand...

That is a part of it, however, the whole of the voting populous is grossly uninformed/misinformed.

Their ignorance is displayed nearly every voting cycle.

Dav said:

A paradox. If you can vote, and others cannot, you already have greater rights over another. You decide how the country works, they just get to sit and watch even though it affects them too.

Click to expand...

Voting in a federal election is not a right, it is a privilege.

Having that privilege means you can't vote yourself gifts from the public treasury and still keep it.
If you did, someone as will probably vote it out of your hands during the next election.

Dav said:

Unless a majority of the country is a government worker it would be kind of hard to vote themselves benefits on their own.

Click to expand...

The single biggest employer in the U.S. is the federal government.
Pandering wouldn't be hard to do, a politician can just offer more pay for everyone including benefits to garner votes.

Dav said:

That has nothing to do with what I said, which is that our government is based on the consent of the governed, not the consent of a select few of the governed.

Click to expand...

The consent of the governed means that people are not being mistreated or abused, so they allow the government to continue to exist.

In our present climate, some have decided that they are owed money that they never earned and use government to extract it from others at the point of a gun.

That is blatant abuse.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Voting in a federal election is not a right, it is a privilege.

Having that privilege means you can't vote yourself gifts from the public treasury and still keep it.
If you did, someone as will probably vote it out of your hands during the next election.

Click to expand...

I think you are attributing large federal spending problem to the wrong root. The problem is not that everyone has a vote, and can vote in their self interest, but that Congress is spending in areas that are not authorized by the Constitution.

We can't deny democracy to people because the system of government is broken. That would just break the system more.

nerv14 said:

I think you are attributing large federal spending problem to the wrong root. The problem is not that everyone has a vote, and can vote in their self interest, but that Congress is spending in areas that are not authorized by the Constitution.

We can't deny democracy to people because the system of government is broken. That would just break the system more.

Click to expand...

Democracy is the root of the problem.

People legitimize the actions from their own self interest.
Why is it ethical for a voter to help elect a politician that plans on giving them money or benefits, when it isn't ethical for a politician to do the same for a special interest group.

Not to bash our current president but he promised the world of unearned benefits to get a elected. He was basically vote buying.

Okay, I agree. Limit the amount of damage one can do, but what if someone does a lot of good for our country? Would we eliminate them as well?

And there are already mandatory term limits.

Harry Guerrilla said:

That is a part of it, however, the whole of the voting populous is grossly uninformed/misinformed.

Their ignorance is displayed nearly every voting cycle.

Click to expand...

I always figured the only really ignorant thing to do was either not vote, or vote for some radical group like Libertarians.

I don't need some wild ass people to tell me whether they approve of my vote, or my reason for voting how I did. I don't need people limiting my freedoms when it comes to voting. I sure as hell don's need some right wing elitist suggesting that some people just ain't good enough to vote.

You want to go and infringe on the freedoms of people in this country to vote as they choose, for whoever they choose, move to another country and do it. One of the fundamental things that this country does right is give nearly unfettered rights to vote for people.

Redress said:

I always figured the only really ignorant thing to do was either not vote, or vote for some radical group like Libertarians.

I don't need some wild ass people to tell me whether they approve of my vote, or my reason for voting how I did. I don't need people limiting my freedoms when it comes to voting. I sure as hell don's need some right wing elitist suggesting that some people just ain't good enough to vote.

You want to go and infringe on the freedoms of people in this country to vote as they choose, for whoever they choose, move to another country and do it. One of the fundamental things that this country does right is give nearly unfettered rights to vote for people.

Click to expand...

I hate to tell yea but not every individuals voice matters.

One of the greatest scams of the 20th century was to convince everyone that they matter and that they deserve to be heard.

You don't have a right to vote in federal elections, it doesn't exist.

danarhea said:

How do you vote?

My vote - Eliminate them entirely. Put term limits on everyone. As long as the law limits their terms, then they will be limited as to the amount of damage they can do as a result of believing that they are better than the rest of us.

Click to expand...

I've got a better idea.

Let's pick our representatives the same way we pick our jury pools: randomly.

Set up a database of able-bodied adults of legal age, and just pick names out of the proverbial hat.

I'd go a step farther and require that politicians can only hold *ANY* public office for 2-3 terms, then they are required to work in the private sector, not for the government, for at least one term before running for any office again. That'll keep them in touch with reality, something that most politicians seem to have a serious problem with.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I hate to tell yea but not every individuals voice matters.

One of the greatest scams of the 20th century was to convince everyone that they matter and that they deserve to be heard.

You don't have a right to vote in federal elections, it doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Really? And how are you going to stop me? In fact, who the hell are you to decide who should be able to vote and who should not?

Redress said:

Really? And how are you going to stop me? In fact, who the hell are you to decide who should be able to vote and who should not?

Click to expand...

I am not the government, but you can look it up yourself.
There is no right to vote in a federal election.

You act as if it is heroic to defend people who use government to take from other people. In any other situation its called theft.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I am not the government, but you can look it up yourself.
There is no right to vote in a federal election.

You act as if it is heroic to defend people who use government to take from other people. In any other situation its called theft.

Click to expand...

I am not defending anything except the ability of people to vote, which you cannot stop. You are welcome to make yourself look foolish trying to stop it, but you won't even succeed.

Redress said:

I am not defending anything except the ability of people to vote, which you cannot stop. You are welcome to make yourself look foolish trying to stop it, but you won't even succeed.

Click to expand...

Of course I won't, I can merely squash the ignorant assumption that everyone voting is a good thing.

My reply to how to stop career politicians is to stop universal voting privileges.
We have tried term limits and they have no real effect.

Why is it good for everyone to be elligible vote?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Of course I won't, I can merely squash the ignorant assumption that everyone voting is a good thing.

My reply to how to stop career politicians is to stop universal voting rights.
We have tried term limits and they have no real effect.

Why is it good for everyone to be elligible vote?

Click to expand...

You have shown zero evidence that every one voting is not a good thing, so you have not "squashed" anything.

Because it would be worse to not allow every one to vote. Because, at some point, some one has to decide on the qualifications, and I don't trust that person to do it right. At it's most basic, the best reason to allow every one to vote is because it is less harmful than not allowing every one to vote.

Probably a better reason to allow every one to vote is that one of the things that makes this country great is we allow every one to have a say, however small, in their government.

Redress said:

You have shown zero evidence that every one voting is not a good thing, so you have not "squashed" anything.

Click to expand...

Here's a somewhat lengthy paper on the effects of giving women the privilege to vote, although I don't agree with restricting voting based on sex, it illustrates that having universal suffrage greatly effected government growth.

The website its linked to is crap but the paper is valid.

http://www.christianparty.net/lottonsuffrage.pdf

If you don't trust the source you can DL it directly from here.
SSRN-How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? by John Lott

Redress said:

Because it would be worse to not allow every one to vote. Because, at some point, some one has to decide on the qualifications, and I don't trust that person to do it right. At it's most basic, the best reason to allow every one to vote is because it is less harmful than not allowing every one to vote.

Click to expand...

I'd disagree based on the findings in that paper.

Allowing universal suffrage has caused government growth beyond reason.
So far the majority keeps voting themselves unearned benefits from the public treasury.

If your familiar with Alexis de Tocqueville, he states what is going on right now pretty well.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Redress said:

Probably a better reason to allow every one to vote is that one of the things that makes this country great is we allow every one to have a say, however small, in their government.

Click to expand...

Not every individuals say is worth hearing, you can say whatever you want as long as you don't make me apart of it.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Senators are elected to support their state. It is completely appropriate, in that context, for them to do things that will help their state and constituents. They need not worry about others...not why they were elected.

Click to expand...

So the public fisc is a feeding trough where each state takes what it can, and devil take the hindmost?

The problem with your logic is that Senators whom I did not elect (being Senators from states other than Texas) vote on ways to expropriate tax dollars originating in Texas to support their states and constituencies. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn likewise do the same for Texas. Regardless of which state, that state's Senators seek to expropriate other states' tax dollars for their own state's benefit.

This is a corruption of the Federal system--a systemic corruption of the Federal system--that is at the root of the angst and unfocused outrage that produced this spring's tea parties. It is, in structure and philosophy, disturbingly analogous to the "taxation without representation" that spurred the civil unrest that grew into the American Revolution.

Term limits are one mechanism to combat that systemic corruption, and to return the government to the proper Constitutional order. By eliminating the overwhelming power of incumbency, and by injecting novice Senators and Congressmen into the equation with regularity, the power of the federal government is correspondingly diminished, and the various state governments will have power flow back to them, where it rightly belongs, under the Constitution.

To borrow from the late Speaker of the House, Tip O' Neill: "all politics is local." In similar fashion, all government should be local, or as local as possible. All that can be done at the state level should stay at the state level, without regulation, intervention, or even assistance from the federal government. Only those matters of a truly national character should be addressed at the federal level.

Term limits are one mechanism--and an effective mechanism--to keep government power localized.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Hmmm...are you all saying that it is important to consider the federal government in this, not just the states?

Click to expand...

That's hardly a revelation. Senators and Congressmen take an oath upon election to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Although their obligation is to their state and constituency, their duty has always been circumscribed by the Constitution.

That is why it is the UNITED States.

You dont need term limits, just don't vote for them.

This is a democracy, isn't it?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Here's a somewhat lengthy paper on the effects of giving women the privilege to vote, although I don't agree with restricting voting based on sex, it illustrates that having universal suffrage greatly effected government growth.

The website its linked to is crap but the paper is valid.

http://www.christianparty.net/lottonsuffrage.pdf

If you don't trust the source you can DL it directly from here.
SSRN-How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? by John Lott

Click to expand...

So you have a paper which purports to show that women voting had an effect on government. To me that is a positive, since women are effected by that government. Women should have a say in the government, and should work to shape it as they choose. You don't like the way they may have, if the paper is accurate(a scan through makes it look less than sure), changed the government, but thankfully, your opinion is not what we as a country use to decide what is good or bad.

You have most definitely still not shown that every one having the vote is clear cut harmful, only that it may have led to a change you personally disagree with.

I'd disagree based on the findings in that paper.

Allowing universal suffrage has caused government growth beyond reason.
So far the majority keeps voting themselves unearned benefits from the public treasury.

If your familiar with Alexis de Tocqueville, he states what is going on right now pretty well.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Click to expand...

This does not address in any way what I was saying. Do you trust a government that turns almost every single action into partisan grandstanding to make good rules as to who should or should not vote?

Not every individuals say is worth hearing, you can say whatever you want as long as you don't make me apart of it.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't agree with what every person says, but they all have a right to say it, and it is worth hearing. I am not going to be like you and think there is some sort of elite who are worthwhile.

Redress said:

So you have a paper which purports to show that women voting had an effect on government. To me that is a positive, since women are effected by that government. Women should have a say in the government, and should work to shape it as they choose. You don't like the way they may have, if the paper is accurate(a scan through makes it look less than sure), changed the government, but thankfully, your opinion is not what we as a country use to decide what is good or bad.

You have most definitely still not shown that every one having the vote is clear cut harmful, only that it may have led to a change you personally disagree with.

Click to expand...

How about SS and Medicare, these programs as well as others are going to leave future generations with debt.

Why hasn't then been addressed? In order to do so politicians would be committing political suicide. Its easier for them to promise more unearned benefits at the expense of future generations who have zero say than to fix the overall problem. How is that good? Why should should future generations pay for older generations luxuries?

I didn't say women shouldn't have a say in government, I said that not everyone should have a say.
The study was an example of why universal suffrage is wrong and dangerous.

Why is it unethical and illegal for politicians to accept bribes but not voters?

Redress said:

This does not address in any way what I was saying. Do you trust a government that turns almost every single action into partisan grandstanding to make good rules as to who should or should not vote?

Click to expand...

The rules are simple.

1.You can not vote if you receive any payment, benefit, special consideration or privilege out side of voting itself.

2.You must be a tax payer.

No grandstanding needed.

Redress said:

I disagree. I don't agree with what every person says, but they all have a right to say it, and it is worth hearing. I am not going to be like you and think there is some sort of elite who are worthwhile.

Click to expand...

Its worth hearing? Are you so sure?

Racial pejoratives, claims of false patriotism, et all are worth hearing?

So to you, elite = people who actually sacrifice something in order to participate?

danarhea said:

How do you vote?

My vote - Eliminate them entirely. Put term limits on everyone. As long as the law limits their terms, then they will be limited as to the amount of damage they can do as a result of believing that they are better than the rest of us.

Click to expand...

I support your sugegstion. The guys know nothing except mobbing and career making. We need more Reagans and Schwarznegers, but not career liars and blah-blah speakers.

Alfons said:

I support your sugegstion. The guys know nothing except mobbing and career making. We need more Reagans and Schwarznegers, but not career liars and blah-blah speakers.

Click to expand...

I don't know much about Reagan other then he was a actor. Der Terminator? He has his own problems in California. There is talk about making marijuana legal to get more money to the government.

Ostap; Seine regierunge in Californien ist pleitem.

Harry Guerrilla said:

How about SS and Medicare, these programs as well as others are going to leave future generations with debt.

Why hasn't then been addressed? In order to do so politicians would be committing political suicide. Its easier for them to promise more unearned benefits at the expense of future generations who have zero say than to fix the overall problem. How is that good? Why should should future generations pay for older generations luxuries?

I didn't say women shouldn't have a say in government, I said that not everyone should have a say.
The study was an example of why universal suffrage is wrong and dangerous.

Why is it unethical and illegal for politicians to accept bribes but not voters?

Click to expand...

You have still not shown that universal suffrage is inherently harmful. You have shown that it may have resulted in programs and results that you personally do not like, but that is it. One of the problems with elitist views like yours is that you confuse your opinions for facts.

The rules are simple.

1.You can not vote if you receive any payment, benefit, special consideration or privilege out side of voting itself.

2.You must be a tax payer.

No grandstanding needed.

Click to expand...

Please explain number 1 better. If I work a job, I am receiving a payment outside of voting, so I don't think that is what you mean...

So poor people who don't pay taxes have no stake in what the government does? How about the unemployed? How about retired people?

Its worth hearing? Are you so sure?

Racial pejoratives, claims of false patriotism, et all are worth hearing?

So to you, elite = people who actually sacrifice something in order to participate?

Click to expand...

Just because I don't like what some one says does not mean it is not worth hearing. Upon hearing it, I may mock or condemn what is said.

No, elitist people are those who think that some people should have more rights than others, and who think their views are the only proper way to do things.

Redress said:

You have still not shown that universal suffrage is inherently harmful. You have shown that it may have resulted in programs and results that you personally do not like, but that is it. One of the problems with elitist views like yours is that you confuse your opinions for facts.

Click to expand...

I have, how is allowing a larger group to create debt for a another group ok?

How is using the government to take money from one group and give it to another, without their consent, ok? By any other measure that is stealing.

My view isn't elitist, its rational and logical. To believe that the majority is right just because is foolish.

Redress said:

Please explain number 1 better. If I work a job, I am receiving a payment outside of voting, so I don't think that is what you mean...

So poor people who don't pay taxes have no stake in what the government does? How about the unemployed? How about retired people?

Click to expand...

If you work for the government you would not be able to vote.
If you receive any payment from the government you can not vote.
It's unethical at the very least. It allows you to form a voting block based on receiving greater benefits than you have earned.

You act as if it is only limited to poor people.
Corporations and rich who lobby for benefits from the government will also be restricted from voting.

Anyone, rich, poor, middle income, retired, not retired who receives any payment, benefit, privilege out side of voting will be restricted from voting.

Paying taxes means that you are sacrificing something to vote, it means that voting has an actual value.

As with all things in economics, if you freely give something away people will treat it as such, worthless.

Redress said:

Just because I don't like what some one says does not mean it is not worth hearing. Upon hearing it, I may mock or condemn what is said.

No, elitist people are those who think that some people should have more rights than others, and who think their views are the only proper way to do things.

Click to expand...

Voting isn't a right. It is a privilege. Even now it isn't a right.

The proper way to do things is to not force people to do things they don't want to do.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I have, how is allowing a larger group to create debt for a another group ok?

How is using the government to take money from one group and give it to another, without their consent, ok? By any other measure that is stealing.

My view isn't elitist, its rational and logical. To believe that the majority is right just because is foolish.

Click to expand...

A couple points. One is that you have not shown that restricting votes to some people would necessarily change any of the things you are complaining about.

The second is that if you want to change things, vote those doing what you don't like out. That is the American system.

If you work for the government you would not be able to vote.
If you receive any payment from the government you can not vote.
It's unethical at the very least. It allows you to form a voting block based on receiving greater benefits than you have earned.

You act as if it is only limited to poor people.
Corporations and rich who lobby for benefits from the government will also be restricted from voting.

Anyone, rich, poor, middle income, retired, not retired who receives any payment, benefit, privilege out side of voting will be restricted from voting.

Paying taxes means that you are sacrificing something to vote, it means that voting has an actual value.

As with all things in economics, if you freely give something away people will treat it as such, worthless.

Click to expand...

So in your plan, no one can vote. Brilliant!

Voting isn't a right. It is a privilege. Even now it isn't a right.

The proper way to do things is to not force people to do things they don't want to do.

Click to expand...

And yet you would force people to do things in order to vote....

And you claim your view is logical...

Redress said:

A couple points. One is that you have not shown that restricting votes to some people would necessarily change any of the things you are complaining about.

The second is that if you want to change things, vote those doing what you don't like out. That is the American system.

Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that.

There is no one willing to stop these things, it would be committing political suicide for them.
I am a minority and my rights have been compromised for the majority.

Redress said:

So in your plan, no one can vote. Brilliant!

Click to expand...

You can always refuse benefits, no one is forcing you to take them.

Redress said:

And yet you would force people to do things in order to vote....

And you claim your view is logical...

Click to expand...

Of course. If you want to selflessly contribute, you must actually contribute.

We require our juries, judges, politicians etc to recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest involved in something they are handling.
Why should we not also recuse ourselves when there is a blatant conflict of interest?

All I asking for is a voter bill of ethics, if that is elitist then there is no hope for us to remain free from any abuse.