100% Democracy: Should We Require Voting?

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (107 posts)
  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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/

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              What the heck are you talking about????

      2. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          +++++

        2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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????

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The draft . The ultimate sacrifice that a government forces upon a segment of the population. This is ok? But not 100% participation in democracy?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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/

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  The selective service system remains in place. It did not go away with the end of the Vietnam war.

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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/

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

            2. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            ". 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.

          3. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

    3. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years ago

      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?

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "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.

      2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yep. Low turnout elections favor Republicans.

      3. Ken Burgess profile image73
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            GA

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              More 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?

              1. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                GA

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Do 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.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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

              2. Ken Burgess profile image73
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image90
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  GA

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    This is why many posts cannot be read in one sitting nor should anyone expect themselves to.

                    big_smile!

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image73
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      So the lower the turnout the better? Why not strive to be as inclusive as possible?

                2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image73
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to 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.

            2. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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. ;-)

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I 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"

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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

                    GA

                    1. Credence2 profile image77
                      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      The 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.

                  2. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "Maybe, I should have said "bovine excrement" or "gluteus Maximus"

                    Okay, you made me laugh with this one.  Thanks!

                    1. Credence2 profile image77
                      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Always glad when we can share a chuckle, Mike, thanks...

        3. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

    4. Stephen Tomkinson profile image90
      Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

      I'm a little uncomfortable about obliging people to vote, but what about declaring an election invalid if turnout falls below a certain level?

    5. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      "With conservatives attacking voting rights,"

      HOW do they do this, again?

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

    6. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 2 years ago

      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/

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "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.

    7. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      Emotional verus logical!

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        And what makes you think that YOU are the paragon of logic?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I am logical. Others are emotional.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "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 reasoning

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              What 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.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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!

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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....

    8. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      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.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)