100% Democracy: Should We Require Voting?
As Americans we are required to pay taxes, serve on juries, get driver's licenses in order to operate our cars and sometimes even go to war for our country. So why not ask or require every American to vote?
There are arguments that universal participation in our elections should be a cornerstone of our system. It would be the surest way to protect against voter suppression and the active disenfranchisement of a large share of our citizens. And it would create a system true to the Declaration of Independence's aspirations by calling for a government based on the consent of all of the governed.
It's not as radical or utopian as it sounds: in Australia, where everyone is required to vote (Australians can vote "none of the above," but they have to show up), 91.9 percent of Australians voted in the last major election in 2019, versus 60.1 percent in America's 2016 presidential race.
I'm also wondering what this would do to the vicious partisanship we currently have here.An interesting prospect, yet I have some reservations while I am no expert on political science. Just for info the link below is to the countries where there are mandatory voting by the PBS News Hour.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/2 … -mandatory
Again, no political scientist here the reason I have reservations is I get stuck on Liberty. If it is mandatory to vote does that impose on my Liberty? To me that just stands out more with political stuff, though it is probably more of my mind wandering.
Yes, I agree there are many things we are required to do such as those you shared. Yes, doing so would solve problems as you shared too. Seventy seven million eligible voters not voting in 2020 certainly says something too. I like the idea of a 'none of the above' on the ballot. But, I like my write in opportunity today as the last two elections I voted for Teddy Roosevelt and am proud of that.if a person does not vote, it means he has not informed himself of the issues, is not interested in politics and/or doesn't want to contribute for whatever reasons.
To force such a person to vote is bad for everyone else.
Very bad! As one can easily understand:
The vote would be random and not chosen.
It would not represent the true / actual majority of sentiment.Are You assuming that All voters are well-informed? Accurately and truthfully informed?
Candidates and political parties would need to appeal to all voters, not just “likely” voters.
it’s hard to believe that elections could be more erratic or unpredictable than they have been recently. In Australia, where mandatory participation has been the law for nearly a century, there is no evidence that their elections are more erratic or unpredictable than anyone else’s.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 … r-answers/That question is irrelevant in considering required voting. Forced "universal participation" might work in Australia, but it won't work here. it will cause people to feel pressured to vote, leading to feelings of stress, anger and the downward spiral that depression causes.
Furthermore, if one has no interest in the issues or ability to become appropriately informed, its better if that person DOES NOT VOTE.
If only a small percentage exercise the right to vote and the out come is bad, better luck next time. By natural interest and motivation, the non-voters will become voters.
of course, what else?
Lets be logical. forcing is TABOO! And in the end nonproductive.
Why force people to vote only to make half-hearted attempts to participate and contribute uninformed, unthought-out votes?We already have people making uninformed votes. And we are "forced" to do plenty in this country. Including giving up our sons and daughters to fight a war if our government deems necessary.
What the heck are you talking about????
One has the right to vote --- However, it sounds like you are promoting a form of dictatorship law to force one to vote perhaps against their will.
The First Amendment thus far protected Americans to have the right to speak, and also includes the right not to speak.
What if a citizen could not come to grips with either candidate. Should they be forced to hold their nose?
I remember Former President Obama praised the idea of mandatory voting. he seemed to feel it would be transformative and could completely help to change the political map in this country. In my view, this would be Government overreach. And step on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.Well I'm sort of on the fence
It's interesting food for thought. Maybe Just playing devils advocate here. It's an intriguing concept. I have been reading some articles lately that show a renewed interest. Just thought I'd throw it out here. Yes, it could be viewed as authoritarian in a way. I can totally understand that view but then I think of all of the other things we are "forced" to do as Americans. Like I had mentioned to Kathryn, the ultimate sacrifice of being forced to give up a family member to potentially be killed in a war if the government decides they need to go.
But in Australia I see there is an option to forego a choice. You Do have to show up though. But also I understand they include much more civic education at the high school level in preparation to vote. I suppose there's a totally different culture around voting there.
I'm not sure if there would be much of a constitutional argument but then again I'm no expert on that but the constitution says nothing about voting rights.
The Bill of Rights recognizes the core rights of citizens in a democracy, including freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. It then recognizes several insurance policies against an abusive government that would attempt to limit these liberties: weapons; the privacy of houses and personal information; protections against false criminal prosecution or repressive civil trials; and limits on excessive punishments by the government.
But the framers of the Constitution never mentioned a right to vote
The Constitution left voting rules to individual states. Wondering If this could be adopted on state levels?NO!
" Like I had mentioned to Kathryn, the ultimate sacrifice of being forced to give up a family member to potentially be killed in a war if the government decides they need to go."
Again, what are you saying here? can you explain your thinking/understanding?
"...being
forced
to give up a family member
to potentially
be killed
in a war
if the government
decides they
need to go."
... such as who THEY is? children under the age of 18 or something?
HUH????The draft . The ultimate sacrifice that a government forces upon a segment of the population. This is ok? But not 100% participation in democracy?
Well, President Nixon in 1973 didn't think it was.
The draft led to flag burning, as you may not be aware of ...
in the case you weren't born yet.
President Nixon and Flanigan (a most trusted aide,) realized their goal of ending the draft in 1973. It is difficult to imagine they would have been able to accomplish this feat had the Administration (and Congress) not taken the politically difficult stance in 1969 to initiate draft change, which paved the way for ending the draft altogether within 4 years.
https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2014/11 … ing-draft/The selective service system remains in place. It did not go away with the end of the Vietnam war.
I did not know this:
According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday. Selective Service accepts late registrations up until a man reaches his 26th birthday.
Failure to register is a felony and non-registrants may be denied the following benefits for life:
State-based student loans and grant programs in 31 states
Federal job training under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (formerly Workforce Investment Act)
Federal (and many state and local) jobs
Up to a 5-year delay of U.S. citizenship proceedings for immigrants
https://www.sss.gov/register/men-26-and-older/Yes, this is what I meant. The government reserves the right to snatch one of your family members and send them to a war they've deemed necessary. But we think that universal voting as a civic duty is giving the government too much power or authority? I struggle with that.
I'd like to point out young men are required to register for the draft. There is currently no active draft taking place. The United States has an all-volunteer armed force.
". I can totally understand that view but then I think of all of the other things we are "forced" to do as Americans. Like I had mentioned to Kathryn, the ultimate sacrifice of being forced to give up a family member to potentially be killed in a war if the government decides they need to go."
First --- we have not used the draft in a very long time. We have a wonderfully huge voluntary military. People that have stepped up to defend our freedom. Voting is one of our greatest freedoms in my view. I also feel should be taken seriously. One should have the opportunity to research candidates and have them front and center sharing their policies, and agendas. It should not be a burden to step up to follow the voting rules in one's state and vote. We have been doing this for hundreds of years now. Whether we wait in line or do what is necessary to mail a vote in, it is a privilege to do the work to be able to vote for someone you hope will be good for America or the candidate that one feels is the better for the two, or even to just support one's party that has the same values. If I at some point felt differently about casting my vote, and wanted to toss in the towel due to all the BS, and say the hell with it, I don't want to vote, that should be my right.
Your statement makes also me come back with --- do we need to continue down the path have more rights taken away or dictated, and forced to do something we just do not feel is in our best interest? Ask yourself, when would Government stop the overreach into our lives, our freedoms?
Freedoms are precious in my view, and if push comes to shove, I pray the better majority of Americans would fight to keep them.I am not too keen about having individual states set up standards, inconsistent with federal law. I know how under the guise of "States Rights" people have been legally disenfranchised. Once the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was in many ways rendered "null and void", partisan hacks are free to do whatever they like without any oversight. I don't want to go down that road if I can avoid it.
I think that that idea is just a little bit too authoritarian for my taste.
Conservatives would definitely be against it as there will be no voters nor votes that they could suppress. How would they ever have a chance to win any election?"a little bit too authoritarian for my taste"
I don't agree with anything you said except this. I agree with you on this statement 100 percent.Yep. Low turnout elections favor Republicans.
Yes Conservatives have wicked evil ideas.
Like suppressing the vote of non-citizens.
Requiring an ID to vote.
Requiring ballots be counted ONLY when oversight is present, never allowing for votes to be counted behind closed doors with no accountability.
Conservatives are so evil like that.Up with the ABUSE of FREEDOM to vote!
Down with protecting the people from those who would cheat and lie to vote in an attempt to steal an election.Yes, today's Trumper conservatives are problematic at best.
If everyone were required to vote then I would presume that everyone would have to have the necessary identification to qualify to cast a ballot. You would be compelled to get the minimum ID necessary to participate.
If partisans can not play with the franchise and make rules as a hinderence, the increased turnout would turn out the GOP and its candidates far more reliably.C'mon Cred, give it a break. A 6-hour old thread with multiple comments about required voting, and you grab the "conservatives" hook to bring Trump into the conversation?
Bless your heart, you must have missed a colleague's gripe about `Seeing the same stuff, day after day is annoying'.
Moving on, Why do you assume everyone would have to have the necessary identification? If you follow that reasoning then what would be proper identification?
Still moving along, I don't think voting should be mandatory for several reasons. Just the thought draws a `Hell no.' that doesn't need any other explanation.
GAMore people voting means wealthy campaign donors would have less influence because elected officials will have to be more responsive to their voting constituents and not just to donors. As things are now, the pool of actual voters is skewed by race, income, and age. Election processes would open up significantly. The nature of campaigns would change for the better.
Is this not the answer to massive voter roll purges, gerrymandering,Political and legal fights over voter registration deadlines and polling? Shouldn't it be a civic duty? Why am I forced to show up at a court and serve on a jury, when I really may not have the aptitude or fortitude but I am considered fit for? Isn't it time to view or recognize voting as a civic duty?
I get it that duties suggest responsibilities. Indeed, many view duties and obligations as hinderances upon their freedom.
Of all the things we are forced to do as Citizens of the United States, The requirement to vote would be so heinous? So destructive?To your final questions, yes.
What value is a vote that is not interested enough to voluntarily vote?
Your line of reasoning seems to be based solely on `numbers'. That isn't any different from what we already have except that the vote-drive buses and carpools would be Federal vehicles.
GADo you assume that if there was a requirement to vote that it wouldn't spark an interest in those who wouldn't typically vote? Or that it wouldn't change politicians campaigning behavior to reach those people? In reality, We don't really know how many non-voters are actually informed and have some definite views. Why is there the assumption that all of these non-voters have no political thoughts at all or that their thoughts/opinions are uninformed? And I suppose as Australia does we would have the option to choose none of the above for the truly politically empty-headed.
I have the perception that the vast majority of our nation sees daily political discussions. From the news shows to daily non-news media talk shows, (The View, et al), to the Oscars, (and all Hollywood-related presentations), and, of course, on Social media, there's more than enough information out there to spark any interest that is worth sparking.
So, and speaking to significant numbers, not insignificant exceptions, I don't think a requirement would spark further interest.
I do think it would help the politicians. Instead of having to go out and find new voters, they would have a national registry of +'s, -'s, and nulls, (R's D's, and I's), to pick from. Target the nulls and swing them your way. Same as now, except without the government assistance.
I wouldn't draw the conclusion that non-voters are apolitical, my point was that if they aren't motivated enough by their own views, then let them be. Their vote has no true value, it can only have a mandated value. And I make the assumption that `we all know' how valuable those are.
As for Australia, why the complication of options? If you can opt out why make that an unnecessary effort. They already had an opt-in process, so it doesn't make sense to complicate things.
And then . . . I would argue that the truly politically empty-headed would choose the opt-out choice.
GA
I created a quite lengthy and well researched response to the first paragraph of this comment.
Unfortunately I hit a combination of keys that sent it to script, however I do not regret the research done, only that I cannot share its results in the detail I had.
What I did learn was surprising, the majority of under-educated voters went to Trump. Which counters the very idea of getting everyone to vote being a good thing for a Republic or Democracy, IMO.
Of all the socioeconomic factors impacting voter turnout, education has the greatest impact. The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to vote. But in the 2016 election and the 2020 election the percentages shifted with less educated voters coming out.
Biden’s share of votes by Latinos decreased by 8 percentage points compared to Hillary Clinton’s, and his share of votes by Black people decreased by 3 percentage points.
Biden’s share of voters with a college degree improved by about 4 percentage points from Clinton’s.
The 2020 election took place against a backdrop of extreme partisan rancor and social unrest, during a pandemic, with lockdowns causing economic hardships, where voter laws were circumvented and changes to ballot collecting and counting were conspicuous in two critical swing states Biden needed to win.
Without the combined effect of social unrest, economic hardships and lockdowns, and the alteration of how the elections were conducted in critical swing states Biden would not have come close to winning. IMO.Ken, I feel your pain. I have done the same thing, multiple times; a long
thought-out response—gone with an unknown misclick.
And here's another one that happens frequently because I just leave the HP tab open all the time. It seems that after a period of inactivity HP logs you out but doesn't tell you until you try to preview or submit a comment. It just replaces your comment screen with a log-in screen. Your comment is gone, you have to start over.
Now I force myself to save the text first.
GAThis is why many posts cannot be read in one sitting nor should anyone expect themselves to.
!It has happened before, I usually just decide to take a break from Hubpages when it does.
So, here is an interesting thing to keep in mind, we had about 160 million people vote in the last election, the most ever, likely largely due to the changes in Mail-In Ballots and extended times.
Lets see what the count is in 2024, when there should be much stricter rules and regulations back in place on Mail-In ballots and extended times.So the lower the turnout the better? Why not strive to be as inclusive as possible?
Voting is a patriotic duty and privilege. If you make it mandatory it will make people grumpy. They will begrudge their duty. They might vote any 'ol way just to fulfill the requirement.
The youth today have no way gage their world. Things are so topsy-turvy.
Things are so far beyond common sense. On You Tube, Will Smith's daughter advocates a polyamorous life style / exposes a saucy rebellious attitude in front of her grandmother and mother. The grandmother was trying to talk sense into her granddaughter. She wouldn't hear it.
I saw a gay kindergarten teacher in Florida on You Tube crying about how he won't be able to share his gay life style with his students, which, he bragged, he does daily. We have college professors rewriting and destroying history to provoke hatred for America. For what reason I still don't know. A college student asked me to read what he wrote in regards to the importance of being able change the Constitution to fit the times.
Many young adults are so confused.
They have become a-political and basically, purposefully mentally blank. Their opinion about the trans swimmer must not be expressed. Oh no! Some do, but most don't, for fear of being politically incorrect and unawoke.
Yes, they have to blank out politics today. They don't get it ... and I don't blame them.
Do you want their mandated votes?
Maybe!
But I do not. Their votes will based on emotional arguments advocating equity and utopianism, rather than good solid principles based on common sense, love, logic and the truth /reality
of HUMAN NATURE.Yes by all means block out their votes based on the fact you feel your principles are more solidly grounded than theirs. Yes, a society where someone decides who is capable, fit or desirable enough to participate. Sounds more Orwellian than utopian.
"But I do not. Their votes will based on emotional arguments advocating equity and utopianism, rather than good solid principles based on common sense, love, logic and the truth /reality"
That is the thing I dislike about Conservatives, is they always believe they Are somehow noble to the point that they can discount the view and values of others and deny them their right to participate because of it.
Your perspective on "common sense" may well not be as common nor as sensible as you would have us believe.....Voting is a privilege? Is that your view? Studies show that is the view of the right whereas the left believe it is a right. Why are there two views of this? There is no where in the Constitution does it say a citizen has the right to vote, yet it does protect a citizen from being restricted of voting and gave voting rights too. Confusing eh. Plus voting is a states rights issue is it not?
If curious about the partisan divide on that issue take a peek at . . .
Wide partisan divide on whether voting is a fundamental right or a privilege with responsibilities by Pew Research (July 22, 2021)
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … ibilities/
And . . .
What Does the Constitution Say About the Right to Vote? by Democracy Docket (Feb 3, 2022)
https://www.democracydocket.com/news/wh … t-to-vote/Intriguing, TSmog
On the principle that government in a democracy has to based upon the consent of the governed, or it ceases to be a democracy by definition.
It is not a privilege to pay taxes or be available for selective service or jury duty. Taxation without representation is tyranny. Conservatives always like to parrot the Constitution, what about this?
What makes conservatives think that I am going to let people rule over me without my consent? (The majority of the voters)
That is why conservatives have no problem encouraging voter suppression and speaking of (the quality) of a vote and a voter from their narrow perspectives.
It is the same old hackneyed refrain for the conservatives, "some people are more equal than others"
The Right to vote is exactly that (a right).
From the Left, Credence2...I agree with at its core democracy is as you presented, "government in a democracy has to based upon the consent of the governed, or it ceases to be a democracy by definition."
I am sure there were those who thought I was not capable, competent, or experienced enough to vote when I voted the first time in 1972. I suspect from a discussion in the past that is the same for you and Kathryn too. So, why should we limit those youth embarking on their own journey participating in democracy?Again, TSmog, you bring an interesting idea to the table.
You and I are exact contemporaries, 18 was the magic number because 18 is the age of majority. It is the age where you could be drafted to risk your life, so who had the right to say that you had no say in selecting the leaders who were sending you there? Were we just cannon fodder?
I was intrigal during early and mid 70s in the fight to end second class citizenship in the no man's land of those between the ages of 18 and 21.
That is the difference between being under 18, a minor, and an adult who I can hold responsible and accountable for his or her actions
Voting is a [r]ight because the government gives it to you, right? If so, can't the government take it away from you? Not derny, but remove?
Your taxes, jury, and selective service analogies are off the mark. And your "what about this?" question is confusing. What about what, an obligation, (your examples), which is an agreed-upon price of admission, or a demand—that our democracy say it's a [r]ight?
GAit is not given, more than it is a pact between government and the governed, to keep everybody honest and accountable. It can be forfeited, as prescribed by law, for breaking the law. Certainly, not because some people believe they are smarter than others which was the direction Kathryn was leading toward.
You have made the distinction between deny and remove, as I agree with it. Fundamentally though, if the government does not give it to me, then then it is no longer a democracy as defined in our Constitution as the guiding legal document within this society.
i may have been confusing according to the rest of your comment. I guess my point is that rights come with responsibilities and vice versa.Not given, but agreed to, (a pact)? That doesn't work because a pact also requires something to be given—voluntarily, from both sides. Something given is a privilege.
As something given, it can be given conditionally. We already do that with our `right' to vote. And `we' can add more conditions to the `pact', as long as they are constitutional, and the other `we' agrees, and still call ourselves a democracy.
I certainly agree with you that privileges, (rights), come with responsibilities. For me, that responsibility is little more than the effort of breathing, it is simply the effort of making a choice. Vote or don't vote. A mandatory vote, because you draw breath, in the case of this issue, is a useless vote. It has no value for its purpose.
If one isn't interested enough to even decide, then what value is their vote?
GAWhat value is a vote based on lies on conspiracy theory?
I get the right to vote in return for allowing the government to govern over me and respecting their authority to do so.
Those "conditions" have limits that are in line with Constitution and federal law, that overrule the caprice of States, oftentimes.
'Reasonable" would be that voters identify themselves as being over 18, citizens of the United States and residents of the state, country or municipalities where they cast their ballots. They cannot be imprisoned or otherwise not allowed to vote, while on parole or such. However, that too, needs to be questioned as that right to vote should be restored once the sentencing has elapsed and restitution to society has been made complete. Without the interference of DeSantis, we would have accomplished much of that here in Florida. Making the process more difficult for people without those adjustments having any real merit, such as closing the offices where ballots can be deposited after 5pm is a non-starter. What is the purpose of that? It just is a ruse to discourage the working folks from participation and I am not fooled by it.
I dont agree with mandatory voting, but many including Kathryn seem to allude to the idea that certain people should not vote whether they want to or not. That is where the line is drawn in the sand for me, anyway.I never, ever said to deny anyone the privilege/right of voting.
In my simple understanding, voting is a privilege and a right in that we live in a democratic country. It becomes a patriotic duty to take part in the running of a government by the people for the people. Just as we provide opportunities for participation in the military for those who are interested in defending the country as a patriotic duty.
Those who do not want to vote should not be forced to vote as they very likely, according to human nature, will not contribute in a honest and true way
The purpose of voting: Finding out what the majority wants so that it can be represented in governmental decisions. The reason to vote should be motivating enough, to get out and vote. Stupid voting and stupid decisions that will be regretted later, is not a reason to vote.Now, you decide to be reasonable. I had to go all the way, (almost), to the end to find something to disagree with. And even then, it was only the DeSantis and voter suppression stuff that was smelly.
(I must be rubbing off on you. It has happened before ;-) )
GA
What you believe to be conspiracy theory may actually be all too true.
The individual that has done their research to discover who they choose to vote for may be working with a wealth more knowledge that you yourself have.
Falsehoods are often fed to Americans that many will believe are truths, those who have information that counters those falsehoods are often called "conspiracy theorists".It is also that many of these "conspiracy theories" are pure bunk. How do we go about sorting the wheat from the chaff?
Well that question has a complicated answer.
We are the sum of our experiences, each of us will have a varying idea of what is “true” based on them.
You and I may want the same things for humanity, but we will believe in very different ways to achieve it.
It takes work to be impartial, it requires effort to try and put oneself in another’s shoes to try and understand their perspective and discipline is required to try and see the bigger picture, to project beyond the here and now.
It is human nature to lean towards those sources of information that lend credibility to our beliefs and reinforce our fears.
Sources of one bias:
FOX, Breitbart, Newsmax, Blaze
Are just as bad as the other
CNN, MSNBC, Slate, Huffington Post
Even if a person believes themselves capable of being objective, when they expose themselves to a particular bias regularly, they are increasing that bias within themselves, as well as, exposing themselves to potential falsehoods which they will consider factual until it is proven definitively otherwise.
This is why I gather information from “outside” sources or the WSJ and Reuters when it comes to trying to gather a definitive position on something, I cut myself off from FOX years ago as I realized they push a bias that is just as jaded as that pushed by CNN.
So how do we know if a “conspiracy theory” is pure bunk?
That will require each individual to weigh their experiences and use their research skills to conclude for themselves what is “true” and what is not.Part of the problem, as I see it, is that it has become popular to determine truth, or reality, based on perceptions. Everyone has a different perception; therefore there are many different realities.
Example: two color blind people view a car. One deems it green and the other calls it brown. Both not only insist they are right, but modern philosophy says they are right...even as a colorimeter tells us the wavelength of the light from the car is red.
The concept of many realities from observing one event is false to fact - there is but one reality. People may think different, it may be different based on their personal bias, but there is only one reality, one truth.Perhaps, but who among us, tainted by biases, is equipped to infallibly identify what that one reality, that one truth is? We all are just relative observers.
We are relatives? or fellow observers ...
- what do you mean relative observers?I meant that being mere humans, who can see in terms of absolutes?There is always some bias in the way that any of us can see anything.
We all process this belief in a "absolute truth" through our own personal filters, life backgrounds, ethnicity, religion,etc. Whether we want to admit it or not we all have them.
Being on this forum is proof that everybody has an agenda whether they acknowledge it or not.
I may acknowledge that this does not necessarily apply to the hard sciences. 2 + 2 is always 4, nothing relative about that.we are not mere humans. Why do you say that?
Jesus said, "know ye not that ye are gods?"
Why limit us as humans?
For instance, Have you ever wondered if you yourself made your own body? if not ourselves WHO DID?And what caused/es you to exist/manifest?
It stands to reason that if we are all alive on earth, we are also alive after we die.
The energy of our beings cannot just cease.
You can admit you don't know, but if you really contemplated the matter as many have done throughout time, you might perceive as they did, that yes your consciousness cannot just disappear and in fact goes on to a much better invisible place sometimes referred to as the astral plane or the metaphysical world of thoughts, blueprints, beauty and light.
You already limited your ability to perceive truth objectively with your skewed perception based on limited, narrow and overly subjective thinking:
"I meant that being mere humans, who can see in terms of absolutes?There is always some bias in the way that any of us can see anything."Why should your perception be considered as the ultimate truth, what about my perceptions?
-------
"Jesus said, "know ye not that ye are gods?"
I read scripture and never saw that, where did you see it?
------
You and (me) are just so many pounds of meat, the benefit of a process called life that animates us. What is more vulnerable than meat? The process of life is neither completely understood and cannot be controlled nor imitated by humans. We start to decompose not long after we are concieved, our existence is negligible relative to eons of time. What type of God is That?
God says that in the universal scheme of things, you don't amount to a speck of dust on the scale.
The human body is a marvel in its complexity, yet from another perspective, quite frail. There are so many more forces that can end life over sustaining it. It is really true the only constant in the universe is death.
The Earth may well be unique in the universe for its ability to support "the meat" and the life processes that sustain it. And from my perspective, that is more than just coincidence.
I cannot abide with all that "New Age" stuff, death is explicitely explained in the scriptures. I not beating you up over it, but you are the one that referenced Jesus. Scriptures do not speak of any conscious existence after physical death, you are in the state of sleep and permanently unconsciousness where only God can awaken you.
But, I tend to believe that works of marvel do not appear from just anywhere. But then that is my perspective, my neighbor could well believe something else. Am I qualified to say that I have the truth and he or she do not?
Who from among us can claim to have all the answers and not have subjective thinking not be a factor in their conclusions as to what is the inerrant and ultimate truth?
I will say that nothing can be more exciting on a Sunday morn that having the opportunity to discuss topics like this with people like you.
Thanks...My point was that you are limiting yourself and not being objective. Ken's opinion up there, I understood just fine.
Great to have a sense of humor, Ken..
Aren't we as a species a pathetic lot?NO! we are amazing! Stop It! My agenda is to bring the truth of our greatness.
(- especially mine, of course and I appreciated being called a "golden goddess."
)That is a compliment, KS.
I certainly don't want to rain on your parade and would prefer to take an optimistic view of humanity and its future. But, alas, if the past is any guide...... Nostradamus saw this obsession with violence and mayhem crossing over ages of time in his future predictions with great despair.
Getting ourselves together as a species does not appear to be on the horizon anytime soon. Maybe, the 23rd century?
"It stands to reason that if we are all alive on earth, we are also alive after we die."
Can you expand that "stands to reason" with facts, data and solid, logical reasoning to show that you are right? Or is it your perception, not necessarily having anything to do with reality?well, you, wilderness can, as you ALWAYS do, limit your perception of reality. I just do not.
- not bragging. just stating the fact of the matter. I am more open in an objective way than you are.
(if you would like to take our opposing viewpoints as case studies.)
My agenda has always been to convince you to be one with the Conservative Libertarian agenda, to cast off your biases, to be freed from you past and look to a brighter future.
That is not as simple as it may appear, there are realities for me and we that, through no fault of your own, are beyond your perception. When I can get the Right and those that advocate for it from any direction to cast away their biases maybe, I would look at my own. When you give me a reason to forget that I will cease to have to remember. We are still not where we need to be.
Dammit and this thread was so light-hearted...
"When I can get the Right and those that advocate for it from any direction to cast away their biases maybe, I would look at my own. "
I don't know if I want to say 'Touche' or 'well put'.
Just one question... since when has there been Conservative Libertarians?
https://www.fff.org/2020/09/23/what-is- … ertarians.
Not a single one.
But that does NOT mean that we should try, that we should not research, that we should take a quick glance to form an opinion. And it certainly does not mean that whatever we conclude is true and real when others proclaim the opposite.
This reminds me of when Oprah said if Meghan Markle feels she is a victim then that is what she is and we need to accept and support it.
Meghan Markle 'Not A Victim' As Beyoncé Is Criticized For Supporting Meghan. Beyoncé has publicly supported Meghan Markle after her Oprah interview ... I mean, when the richest of the rich are claiming victimhood, we really have issues in our civilization.Money does not guarantee a lack of victimhood. How closed minded of you!
Megan was not accepted, There were reasons for her perception of the attitudes and events which occurred at the palace. It's useless to try to determine the accuracy of her claim. It's useless to contemplate the facts of the matter when you can never discern them. Now God? Yes, I can discern God.
It has the value of effort to make a choice, the value of intent, even if you don't agree with the motivator of that effort. Even a dumb, (or more politely, uninformed), vote has the value of intent to make a choice. That is the only value any vote has. Even the smart ones.
GA
Typically it doesn't really matter, Clinton, Bush, Obama, the major foreign and economic agendas and goals keep moving in the same direction regardless of who is President or who is in control of Congress.
Social agendas are created and fought over just so it seems there is a major difference between the parties.
Despite plenty of campaign rhetoric about changing NAFTA and other trade agreements no one attempted to do anything, until Trump.
Despite plenty of campaign rhetoric about ridding the country of the ACA when the Republicans finally had control of Congress and the Presidency they didn't do it, Trump tried, but Senators that promised they would on the campaign trail refused when given the chance.
Its one of the reasons why Trump is so universally despised, he exposed the corruption in DC far more than it had ever been, making it all but impossible to ignore for those willing to look.
Some powerful politicians in DC hate Americans, particularly the working stiffs that make the country run... from linemen to nurses to police to construction workers. They aren't the educated elites, and they aren't the helpless in need of government handouts... they are the annoying Americans that think they deserve to have rights and freedoms.
Sometimes they even slip up and call them deplorables, or openly state that they should be rounded up and put in camps, that sort of thing.
How do the factors you listed add up to more votes for Biden in 2020?
"What I did learn was surprising, the majority of under-educated voters went to Trump. Which counters the very idea of getting everyone to vote being a good thing for a Republic or Democracy
I don't understand this?More people came out to vote.
Those that voted for Biden were more likely to be higher educated.
Perhaps those percentages, and the research done to get them, did not include the millions of Mail-In Ballots that were collected and counted in states like PA after the election had already occurred.
All I know is that the voters without college degrees voted in the majority for Trump, some 65% of those votes went to him in 2020.
I already said NO, but for different reasons. I just would have thought that with a mandate a standard procedure would be necessary to facilitate participation.
Why are we catering to your preferences, GA.? I told you that until Trump gets his a$$ out of the headlines and he is there all the time, he is fair game. It is as simple as that. So, until he croaks, is imprisoned or otherwise get out of politics and keeps quiet, I won't let him go
With conservatives attacking voting rights, this is not an unreasonable direction for the conversation to turn considering the national debate over voter integrity and such.I caught your "no," I just grabbed that thought as an expansion to the OP's points. But think about it, what would be the process of identification?
As for my preferences . . . you are your own man.
On another note, I heard a comedy routine about folks that type Ass as A$$ and bullshit as bullsh$t, (or bullshyte). His jab was that doing so is unmanly, unsophisticated, and cowardly.
Oh, they're just being polite he says. Bullshit he says. They know that when their recipient sees A$$ or Bullsh$t, their mind is reading Ass and bullshit. So stop pretending. Be a man. If you want to say Ass, then say it. If you are not comfortable saying something out loud, then you shouldn't be comfortable saying it in code.
He carried the routine even farther, but he lost me when he blamed it on the midgets.
But wait. I didn't mean that personally, yours was just the first usage I have seen since hearing the bit. ;-)
GAI was a former military officer and gentleman and there remains that sense of decorum about not being vulgar and profane when speaking to others. Somewhere in all my doctrination and training, it has remained. Call it a bit old fashioned if you wish. I try to get my point across without being a potty-mouth, whenever possible. And believe me, it is not always easy.
Maybe, I should have said "bovine excrement" or "gluteus Maximus"Nope, just more euphemisms. Do you disagree that a reader sees the real words when you type the cowardly ones? Does your gentlemanly decorum allow you to put bullshit in a lady's mind, (and know you are doing it), as long as you don't actually spell it out?
Would that be a sort of `wink and sagely nod' thought that manners don't allow me to say it but you know what I really mean." It still has the stink of the potty, just not the visual evidence of the stink.
Remember, you are catching the grief for all offenders, this isn't just about you. Everything isn't always about you, you know. ROFLMAO
GAThe point has to be gotten across, sometimes there are no other words to describe the disgust.
I know, it is not rational, but it just Is.....
Bovine excrement does the same thing regarding the lady's mind, right? In the disgusting world of the rightwing politics, there are very few good substitutes for bovine excrement or BS, if you like.
I am not the only one, I am just one of a class.You grabbed a winner. BS is simple and acceptable. It's just shorthand, not a cowardly euphemism, (bovine excrement), or codeword. Thumbs up to BS.
I agree with you that sometimes the best words are the riskiest ones. Or, the hardest to resist tossing in.
GA
"Maybe, I should have said "bovine excrement" or "gluteus Maximus"
Okay, you made me laugh with this one. Thanks!
Why all of a sudden are minorities having such problems voting? The problem is the Democrats do not want safeguards to prevent fraud. Trump got too close for comfort, and they need to keep anyone else that might tip their boat again. Stir up a problem that is not really a problem and run with it... So, pleased to see some states have gone ahead with some good safeguards that will cut down on fraud.
I'm a little uncomfortable about obliging people to vote, but what about declaring an election invalid if turnout falls below a certain level?
"With conservatives attacking voting rights,"
HOW do they do this, again?This article is 'spot on' and reflects my position and attitude precisely.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … -the-steal
But you gotta love the last sentence in the article, where the Black voters refused to be intimidated and will use the Republican tactics in a determination to cast ballots in even larger numbers just to spite them. Now, that's the kind of esprit de corps I like.
I did a little of looking about seeking demographics of non-voters to maybe get some insight of what would occur if voting was mandatory. while wondering why they don't vote. It was interesting to say the least. Apathy seems to be a cause for being a non-voter. Most feel both parties don't care about them along with feeling their vote won't count anyway. And, they were less educated and earned less. They are pretty much divided between the two sides of the fence, which ups the question if it would make a difference.
To me I would think a cause is our education system does not dedicate enough to this right we have, though they do cover the topic of government moreso in history rather than as civics. As to what extent today I don't know. I know when I was in high school between 1969 - 1972 it wasn't. History was required only for freshman and sophomore years. I got my desire to vote based on world experience, not education.
For a deep dive even if just skimming viewing the graphics three of the sources are below.
Research Identifies Four Types of Nonvoters and How to Reach Them by Susquehanna University (09/09/20)
https://www.susqu.edu/live/news/768-res … voters-and
Poll: Despite Record Turnout, 80 Million Americans Didn't Vote. Here's Why by NPR (12/15/20) Good graphics with this one.
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/94503139 … -heres-why
The Party of Nonvoters by Pew Research (10/29/10)
https://www.pewresearch.org/2010/10/29/ … nonvoters/"To me I would think a cause is our education system does not dedicate enough to this right we have"
Yes! I did read that Australia does much more in the way of preparation for its first time youngest voters.
Civics education in our public schools was abandoned when the No Child Left Behind Act was passed. After that time, teachers' focus was shifted to prepping/coaching students for meaningless standardized test instead.
This group of non voters may very well be the key to winning the next election for whichever candidate can reach even a part of them. Because if we have a rerun of 2020, I don't see either side changing sides. They are going to have to attract new voters. But quite honestly, I don't think either Biden or Trump has the power to bring in non-voters. The candidate will have to be much more dynamic to reach this seemingly cynical and pessimistic group.
Thanks for the links, I am interested to take that dive.
And what makes you think that YOU are the paragon of logic?
"That is the thing I DISLIKE (emotional) about Conservatives, they ALWAYS (vague) believe they are SOMEHOW NOBLE (very vague) to the point that they can DISCOUNT THE VIEWS and VALUES of others (no supporting evidence) and DENY THEM (confused thinking) their right to participate because of it. (False)
Your perspective on "common sense" may WELL NOT BE (no evidence) as COMMON/SENSIBLE (no proof) as you WOULD HAVE us believe."
(I am merely revealing my opinion and not forcing anyone to believe my way of thinking. I am quite open to debate.)
You are ONLY revealing emotion based arguments.
If you want to debate, bring it on ... with logical facts,
examples, for instances and solid reasoningWhat evidence do you have to support your view that common sense is only possible under your interpretation of it?
Your statement that your logic is infallible relative to others is an emotional expression in itself, as it, too, is a subjective argument, yet to be uncatagorically proven as irrefutable fact.Tell me exactly where I am not being logical. Isolate what I said that is not logical to you, (according to what I R E A L L Y said, not what you
P R E T E N D I said.)
Feel free to use the C and the V as liberally as needed.
For instance, prove I said, "Common sense is only possible under my interpretation of it."
and "My logic is infallible, relative to others."
- see ya way later. Lol!Being logical is not saying or implying as you have in your comments that because your opinions on things are not shared by others, that the perspective of the "others" are emotional.
You don't have to say explicitely the points that your make in your comments by inference.
("I am logical, others are emotional")
"Their votes will based on emotional arguments advocating equity and utopianism, rather than good solid principles based on common sense, love, logic and the truth /reality"
Maybe the "others" think the same way of you. So, as the "Golden Goddess, you can come down from Mt. Olympus now....
Truth is truth and based on something.
Something real, even if invisible.
God is a physical and metaphysical reality. For instance, we could see Great Spirit in nature as the American Indians did/do. We may not comprehend the truth of the source of nature, but there is a truth, a reality causing it to manifest. Biology is not something vague. Biology is scientific and defined based upon the objective observations and discoveries of physical phenomenon. We cannot understand what caused all life to exist, but we do see it manifesting. Reason explains there is an invisible force behind everything that exists.
Therefore being objective, as Ken was saying, allows us to be open and able see reality more clearly. It is important to keep our minds free of untruths and the skewed perceptions of others, especially those who have an agenda and purposefully communicate what is not true in the least.
Reality feedback from within is a precious thing.
Related Discussions
- 224
Attorney General Merrick Garland sues the state of Georgia
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/25/10102594 … -black-vot
- 29
Kansas referendum makes it clear: The Right gets a "right cross"
by Credence2 20 months ago
https://www.ksnt.com/elections/kansas-v … -abortion/Great news from the Kansas television station. Would Dorothy say, " are we still in Kansas?A resounding no over a yes against the anti-choice forces by so many voters in a state as conservative as Kansas, should have the Rightwingers...
- 49
Democrats who won't accept Presidential election results
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
- 52
Why do Conservatives prefer “Republic” over “Democracy”?
by Credence2 4 months ago
On this eve of the 82nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I now have my own cache to deliver.Because of the dishonesty, cowardice and treachery of certain forum participants and they know who they are, I will only direct my comments to those that in my experience do not behave in this...
- 29
Do We Need To Have Washington Dectating Voter Laws?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
The House will vote on this bill Wed, 3rd, 2021. Would appear the Federal Government wants its fingers in one more pie...Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement,...
- 77
Should voting be mandatory in the U.S.?
by James Packard 9 years ago
Should voting be mandatory in the U.S.?President Obama said Wednesday mandatory voting would be "transformative", referencing a potential change in how money is spent in campaigns. There might be less vying to get certain groups to come to the polls, but more to get certain groups to...