Why not? Someone falling on hard time due to no fault of their own should not be allow to vote? Ya that really is the way to promote democracy. Let's face it, there are lots of people who are not interested in politics, not every read the D&D on clutchfans you know. I say let them vote I guess.
No. Once you get to the pool of all eligible voters, the buttons to push for a particular demographic response get much harder to find. If everyone votes, you have to find a way to appeal to everybody. The fewer voters you have, the easier it is to direct your message to a particular group... so you'd have less of the ridiculous partisan positions we have now.
that's all in theory. i'll have to see the result when it happens. but heck, it's none of my business. i don't even vote (non-citizen). just trying to think if there are better ways to go about voting. no system is perfect, no system last forever. gotta figure out improvements. i think a lot people would agree that the current system is flawed.
rimrocker...the great conversationalist well thanks for beating the straw man argument. You are truly a master truly a master of that. maybe if you werent such a DICK and asked me exactly what i meant before throwing out your typical immature insult then we could have actually talked and discussed exactly what i meant! for someone so proamerican, rational and applauded in the bong rotation...you sure are good at not listening or even interested in what others have to say. i dont know why i every took your radical, name calling, non-listening/thinking stupid ass off of ignore. ANd yes, i did call you a names...but you fired the first shot, *******.
i was thinking more like, those that are on certain assistance, would more than likely vote for those who pander to continued assitance....see Louisiana. I would actually rather have people who not read vote than those that do read...have you seen the regulars here?
Actually that group of people you want to target are the ones who are least likely to vote for the most part. The regulars you mean like TJ Texx and Basso?
But everyone gets assistance. Should the farmers in Iowa not be able to vote since there are farm subsidies? Should homeowners not be able to vote because we have mortgage deductions on taxes? These are all forms of pandering. What is the major difference between direct assistance and subsidies, price supports, or tax credits/deductions?
But the only way to stop that is to define legitimate (policy) and illegitimate reasons (he's cool) to vote. How on earth do you do that? And what are the rules? What if someone sorta likes his policies but thinks he's really cool? Or knows of one major policy of a candidate, but nothing else? Is someone allowed to vote for Hillary because said person believes its really important to have a woman president, or is that not legitimate? How about religion - is that a factor that can be allowed? etc etc I think anything trying to limit and define voting takes a country down a path it should never, ever go down.
like i said, certain assitances. The ones you list are clearly not the ones because suggesting that I am recommending landowners to not be able to vote is creating a straw man argument. In fact, I would more readily agree with only homeowners could vote...it would certainly help lower houstons ridiculous property tax.
What I'm suggesting is that your premise is flawed. You're saying people on assistance programs (presumably welfare) shouldn't be able to vote because they will vote for people who will pander to them and continue those programs. But why should Iowa farmers be able to vote then? They will vote for politicians who pander to them and continue their programs. Homeowners will vote for people who offer benefits for homeowners. Families with kids will vote for politicians that offer $500-per-child tax credits. Why are all the latter of these acceptable, but not the first?
I knew exactly what you meant. You're trying to target groups you don't like or that would probably vote for Dems. You're subsequent posts prove it. As I said, your statement is absurd, anti-American, and sadly, would probably be applauded on most of wingnut radio. And really, what's the point of D&D if you're going to put people on ignore? That's incredibly weak.
Major, you have the patience of a saint. It used to be Franchiseblade that would take the time to calmly explain dead simple points such as this, but I've noticed he's gotten a little more testy lately. You deserve a medal or something.
well, let me put it this way. since the majority of the americans and people around the world totally dislike the current administration. does that prove, in a way, that those two elections failed the purpose of election. people picked the "wrong" candidates. does that in some way, say that the system is flawed, whether it's due to lack of knowledge about the candidates or what not.
I watched the Republican Debate on Fox News last night. From the sampling they were asking questions of after the debate, it seems like South Carolina is 95% r****d.
is this a joke? you are basically saying people who are benefiting/in favor of X policy should not be allowed to vote because they would favor continuing X policy?
