New Idea to fix election problems

Started by SLC conserve, November 11, 2012, 12:04:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mdgiles

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 09:48:20 AM
Yes.  But we are a heavily democratized republic.  We select senators and House members by popular vote.  And in all practicability, we directly select the president as well.  So while we still elect representatives, that's done so directly.

Now, would you like me to pull up a list of conservative politicians that have called America a democracy?
The people who founded this Republic, NEVER meant for it to be a democracy. They were well educated men ESPECIALLY IN CLASSICAL HISTORY, and they had seen the fate of democracies throughout history. All those democracies eventually foundered on the MOB. There is nothing worse then giving those who don't pay into the public treasury, any say on the spending of the public treasury.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

taxed

Quote from: SLC conserve on November 11, 2012, 12:04:55 AM
I am new to political forums but after the complete joke of a decision on the last election i have found myself completley frustrated with how our "system" works . I have one very simple idea that I think could help emensly and not just to the Rebublican / Conseravtives .

My primary idea is to only allow people who are paying for the government choose its make up . Basically in order to be eligable to vote you have to have filled a tax return the year prior , that way only people who are paying have a say ! Maybe i am way off but makes sense to me ......... IMOP if this was in place we would have a very different list of elected officials .

That is how it used to be, and how it should be today.  My criteria for voting would be:

1 - Homeowner
2 - Not on welfare


You wouldn't see a liberal for centuries.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

mdgiles

One last thing. I know it's fingernails across the blackboard of our conservative sensibilities; but perhaps it's time to reconsider a national ID card - with the penalty for carrying a falsified one, or attempting to falsify one, or assisting anyone to gain a falsified one; being the same as high treason. I know the Dems, would try to bury that idea in a hole near the center of the Earth, but I still like to see it purposed. Oh, and I like to see all voting done in person on election day, no early voting, with the only absentee ballots allowed being members of the Armed services on active duty.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Yawn

I agree with all.  I especially agree with this.

QuoteOh, and I like to see all voting done in person on election day, no early voting, with the only absentee ballots allowed being members of the Armed services on active duty.

This is a recipe for Democrat fraud.  On principle it's wrong.  Voting shouldn't be TOO easy.  People who CARE should have to work for the opportunity to vote.  It helps weed out those who don't pay attention until the day before an election.

Solar

Quote from: mdgiles on November 13, 2012, 10:15:41 AM
One last thing. I know it's fingernails across the blackboard of our conservative sensibilities; but perhaps it's time to reconsider a national ID card - with the penalty for carrying a falsified one, or attempting to falsify one, or assisting anyone to gain a falsified one; being the same as high treason. I know the Dems, would try to bury that idea in a hole near the center of the Earth, but I still like to see it purposed. Oh, and I like to see all voting done in person on election day, no early voting, with the only absentee ballots allowed being members of the Armed services on active duty.
Sadly it's time, it could be a National ID via State level, meaning every state regulates their own data base.
As in Ca, we have strips across the back that have additional info as well as other security features.
Point is, were already required to carry an ID, why not a National one?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: mdgiles on November 13, 2012, 10:06:42 AM
The people who founded this Republic, NEVER meant for it to be a democracy.

You are correct.  But the 17th amendment clearly overrode their wishes.  America is not a pure democracy.  It is a democratic-republic.

This still doesn't justify voter suppression either way.

mdgiles

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 01:08:44 PM
You are correct.  But the 17th amendment clearly overrode their wishes.  America is not a pure democracy.  It is a democratic-republic.

This still doesn't justify voter suppression either way.
Explain why someone who doesn't pay into the public treasury, should have any say as to how the public treasury is spent. I don't work for whatever wages you earn, should the posters on this board, have any say in how you spend your wages?
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: mdgiles on November 13, 2012, 01:14:07 PM
Explain why someone who doesn't pay into the public treasury, should have any say as to how the public treasury is spent.

You don't understand why they don't pay into the public treasury.  Unless if they're pulling off a Romney and evading taxes (in which case they ought to be locked up and no, they shouldn't be allowed to vote without some major payback), most of these people are too poor to pay taxes.  Others are seniors on medicare.  Some are disabled.  Many are veterans. 

Yawn

QuoteUnless if they're pulling off a Romney and evading taxes

Math, Nate Silver. Math.

You do realize TAX EVASION is a CRIME, right?  Can you explain how he got away with this caper?

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: Yawn on November 13, 2012, 01:21:53 PM
Math, Nate Silver. Math.

You do realize TAX EVASION is a CRIME, right?  Can you explain how he got away with this caper?

He used tax loopholes and stored money overseas (I love America!  :rolleyes:).  I guess technically, he wasn't evading taxes...just relocating his wealth.  Whatever.


mdgiles

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 01:16:39 PM
You don't understand why they don't pay into the public treasury.  Unless if they're pulling off a Romney and evading taxes (in which case they ought to be locked up and no, they shouldn't be allowed to vote without some major payback), most of these people are too poor to pay taxes.  Others are seniors on medicare.  Some are disabled.  Many are veterans.
AS I SAID BEFORE YOU STARTED INTO YOUR USUAL EXCUSES. EXPLAIN WHY SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T SUPPORT THE PUBLIC TREASURY SHOULD HAVE ANY SAY AS TO HOW THAT TREASURY IS DISPENSED. Your simply existence doesn't entitle you to anything, besides your GOD given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. NOTHING guarantees that you will attain these. And you definitely have no claim on your fellow citizens assisting you in their attainment. As I asked, explain why the members of this board should have a say in how you spend YOUR money.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Yawn

#27
The kid does what all libs do. He plays fast and loose with terms.  Now, someone who takes advantage of legitimate deductions is a CRIMINAL--unless it's him deducting legitimate expenses.  Damn liberal hypocrites!

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: mdgiles on November 13, 2012, 01:40:05 PM
AS I SAID BEFORE YOU STARTED INTO YOUR USUAL EXCUSES. EXPLAIN WHY SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T SUPPORT THE PUBLIC TREASURY SHOULD HAVE ANY SAY AS TO HOW THAT TREASURY IS DISPENSED.

Because the government exists to serve the people, and there is no "except for those who don't do X, Y and Z!" caveat.

Now, answer my question.  Should veterans who don't pay income taxes be allowed to vote?  Yes or no.

QuoteYour simply existence doesn't entitle you to anything, besides your GOD given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And privacy, and equal protection under the law, and a host of other rights that ultimately serve to benefit the three you mentioned.

Of course, none of these are absolute.  But by your logic, someone from Texas shouldn't be allowed to drive on a state highway in Massachusetts because he didn't pay for it.

There's something called "shared responsibility".  I know that, in your brain, this probably reads "communism".  But you don't have to worry.  It's the basis of society.

-----------

Oh, and if we want to go down the Appeal to the Constitution path, I'll ask you to tell me where in the Constitution is the government given the right to restrict people who do not pay taxes from voting.


QuoteNOTHING guarantees that you will attain these.

What does this have to do with the right to vote?

QuoteAnd you definitely have no claim on your fellow citizens assisting you in their attainment. As I asked, explain why the members of this board should have a say in how you spend YOUR money.

For better or for worse, part of your tax money goes into making sure that I don't purchase illegal substances, that I don't buy a rocket propelled grenade and that I don't hire a prostitute.  So even that is not absolute.

But even taxpayers voting determines to an extent the fate of other people's money, so your point is moot, unless if you want to abolish taxation altogether.