DC Tom Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 It is TRULY a remarkable experience and exercise to live in and vote in California when an important proposition is on the ballot. It is much easier to read and completely understand your full 30 page credit card agreement than it is to read and understand a proposition. No one knows which side they are voting for. And that's in a state that requires "natural language" legislation, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Let's not forget the recounts, too. Look at the circus surrounding Al Franken's election, or the complete, insane inability of Florida in 2000 to define "vote". It's not just the "tyrrany of the majority" to worry about, it's the tyrrany of the retards doing the counting, too. Or just tyranny of people with no sense in general.... either way it would suck worse than what we have now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 It is TRULY a remarkable experience and exercise to live in and vote in California when an important proposition is on the ballot. It is much easier to read and completely understand your full 30 page credit card agreement than it is to read and understand a proposition. No one knows which side they are voting for. Man, you are dead right about this. It's like they go out of the way to make it confusing in hopes that maybe, possibly, they'll manage to get enough people to screw up and pass (or not pass) their propositions. Though, admittedly, the last vote was pretty easy to vote down. What I found particularly interesting is that the CA voters rejected the state's attempt to tax more, borrow more and spend more, and yet there were a number of articles out across the nation saying "Calfornians have screwed up and should have passed these spending/taxing/borrowing propositions because now they're out of money and in trouble." Yeah. More of the same would help things get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Can somebody please explain to me why, 10 years into the "information age" when basically every voting American has access to devices which enable them to provide instantaneous feedback from anywhere at anytime, do we need a House of Representatives to serve as the middle man? In other words, why do I need some attention craving twit to "vote on my behalf" and/or at the behest of PR and lobbyist firms? If it were that easy. How many people still don't have HD TV antennas for their analog TV's because they don't have Cable TV ot Satellite TV. Also not every household has internet, hell some household's don't have TV's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 So, I'm thinkin' we set it up on the order of America's Greatest Legislators, have a Hollywood-type screening process, vote a la American Idol, MLB All-Star voting, etc., then.... Aw crap, skip it, that's what we have now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 Thanks everybody for taking my philosophic musings seriously! It was nice to have a non-partisan hash-out for once! I will say though, the argument "because people are too stupid" doesn't add up to me, given the vast amount of authority said stupid people are already relinquishing to politicians seemingly unconcerned with the will of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Thanks everybody for taking my philosophic musings seriously! It was nice to have a non-partisan hash-out for once! I will say though, the argument "because people are too stupid" doesn't add up to me, given the vast amount of authority said stupid people are already relinquishing to politicians seemingly unconcerned with the will of the people. Best interpretation of "people are too stupid" that I can give isn't "people are too stupid to vote intelligently", but "people are too stupid to vote...period." Every close election already has multiple court challenges about whether or not people cast their votes correctly, how incorrect votes should be interpreted, what is a correct or incorrect vote, whether absentee ballots written by people incapable of following instructions should be counted or not... Wrap all that up in to one great big fisaco, and then apply it to direct democracy. I'm having visions of the US not declaring war on Japan until March of '43, because someone's afraid that Miss Mary Ann Grbinski of East Butt!@#$, Iowa might be disenfranchised because she cast her vote she didn't check a box but instead wrote "I think Churchill's scamming us!" on her ballot, and would be "disenfranchised" if that wasn't somehow challenged in court until counted. (And yes, I know a 60-year old hypothetical isn't particularly applicable when you're arguing technology can make up for idiots. Fact is, technology only forces idiots to find new and innovative ways to be idiotic.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Man, you are dead right about this. It's like they go out of the way to make it confusing in hopes that maybe, possibly, they'll manage to get enough people to screw up and pass (or not pass) their propositions. Though, admittedly, the last vote was pretty easy to vote down. What I found particularly interesting is that the CA voters rejected the state's attempt to tax more, borrow more and spend more, and yet there were a number of articles out across the nation saying "Calfornians have screwed up and should have passed these spending/taxing/borrowing propositions because now they're out of money and in trouble." Yeah. More of the same would help things get better. Visit Ohio. And Cincinnati's county...Hamilton. We have the highest property taxes in the state, closely matched by Cuyahoga (Cleveland) and Franklin (Columbus). We have tax levies for everything. Invariably voted in by the large number of non-taxpaying folks on some sort of public assistance. Two years ago, a minimum wage increase - with an annual cost-of-living raise, was on the ballot and was voted in by Ohio citizens. The grocery store I usually shop at responded by firing workers, and installed four new self-serve registers - with a grocery belt. A small restaurant chain I patronize has cut hours, reduced staff, cut portion size, and raised prices. Their wait staff now has to watch the register, so they are angry. You used to be able to walk the check up, now you wait for someone to pick up the check and the money and return the change. I've no doubt that their tip take has fallen. In my view, their volume is way down. It's masked by the general economic downturn, but with mandated ever-increasing labor cost, they are doomed. Their workers will lose their employment. Our Democratic Governor, Ted Strickland, sweated bullets last year. There was a ballot initiative out there (which would have garnered enough signatures). It wanted 6 days of paid, no-question-asked sick leave for all OH citizens. In 15 minute increments, immediate upon notice. It would have been approved by the voters. Hot project at work? "Oh I have a headache. Gotta go.". Rough meeting coming up in a half hour? "My tummy hurts! See ya." A bit warm in the production floor, manufacturing a valuable sales order? "I feel faint. I'm leaving." The OH government is in the same crisis as most States - they have to find a way to protect their civil servants first, and maintain the gravy train for their most important citizenry - the public assistance crowd that reliably pulls the correct lever come election time. The legislature has been busy. They slapped a half-billion tax increase of hospitals, cooked up some more vehicle laws and fines, and so on. The latest business defectors are DHL - they relocated to KY, and NCR, an old-line company, is bugging out to Atlanta. My wife retires in 2 years - we can't wait to kiss OH goodbye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 The reason the system's set up that way is largely because when the Constitution was written people's identification with the colonies (i.e. "states") was much stronger than it is today (also a large part of the reason the Civil War started), so it was just the natural thing to do. The other, significantly more minor, reason was to try to mitigate the oft-repeated idea of the "tyrrany of the majority" - having an additional layer to insulate legislation from direct democratic participation ensures against an overly-strong bias to special interests (the easiest, though not entirely accurate, modern example is the disparate influence NYC has on NYS politics). I thought it was set up that way to give equal (or "more equal") weight to largely unpopulated states vs heavily populated states, for elections back in the day. Regardless, it seems to have largely outlived whatever usefulness it had, such as: If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle: Florida Law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 A small restaurant chain I patronize has cut hours, reduced staff, cut portion size, and raised prices. Their wait staff now has to watch the register, so they are angry. You used to be able to walk the check up, now you wait for someone to pick up the check and the money and return the change. I've no doubt that their tip take has fallen. Probably not. When you get to make change for the customer, it allows you to break the change down in a way that is advantageous to your tip. That is generally speaking, it may not apply in this case depending on the clientele. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I thought it was set up that way to give equal (or "more equal") weight to largely unpopulated states vs heavily populated states, for elections back in the day. Regardless, it seems to have largely outlived whatever usefulness it had, such as: If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle: Florida Law That's the reason we have a House and a Senate. Senate provides equal representation to each state, House weights it by population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Best interpretation of "people are too stupid" that I can give isn't "people are too stupid to vote intelligently", but "people are too stupid to vote...period." Every close election already has multiple court challenges about whether or not people cast their votes correctly, how incorrect votes should be interpreted, what is a correct or incorrect vote, whether absentee ballots written by people incapable of following instructions should be counted or not... Wrap all that up in to one great big fisaco, and then apply it to direct democracy. I'm having visions of the US not declaring war on Japan until March of '43, because someone's afraid that Miss Mary Ann Grbinski of East Butt!@#$, Iowa might be disenfranchised because she cast her vote she didn't check a box but instead wrote "I think Churchill's scamming us!" on her ballot, and would be "disenfranchised" if that wasn't somehow challenged in court until counted. (And yes, I know a 60-year old hypothetical isn't particularly applicable when you're arguing technology can make up for idiots. Fact is, technology only forces idiots to find new and innovative ways to be idiotic.) And its not necessarily too stupid that's the problem, its the lack of political skills and being informed, without any desire or time to become informed, thats the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 And its not necessarily too stupid that's the problem, its the lack of political skills and being informed, without any desire or time to become informed, thats the problem. There are a lot of reasons for it. Desire and time are surely big ones. It's also extremely hard to find unbiased information on issues. It's quite hard to truly understand tough issues even if you are smart and have the time and the desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 There are a lot of reasons for it. Desire and time are surely big ones. It's also extremely hard to find unbiased information on issues. It's quite hard to truly understand tough issues even if you are smart and have the time and the desire. No such thing as unbiased information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts