Karl Rove Resigning

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]vroom wrote:
To me, it sounds like a great way to “inform” the government, but I don’t want to empower knee-jerk reactionism or other crazy momentarily popular concepts.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s that.

That’s why I mentioned the “educating” the public part. Of course, you can’t really enforce the education, and people might simply vote uninformed.

But it wouldn’t be much of a problem unless a large portion of the population started doing it. The option of not voting at all would remain available, as it is now.

42

[quote]pookie wrote:
Yeah, there’s that.

That’s why I mentioned the “educating” the public part. Of course, you can’t really enforce the education, and people might simply vote uninformed.

But it wouldn’t be much of a problem unless a large portion of the population started doing it. The option of not voting at all would remain available, as it is now.
[/quote]

Maybe the government could track votes and issue tax credits for both educating yourself, proven by a quick test prior to casting your vote, and casting your vote.

Otherwise, how would you make important decisions with 0.5%of the vote participating on any given issue? Even if it is only due to corruption, at least politicians are incented to participate.

43

[quote]vroom wrote:
pookie wrote:
Yeah, there’s that.

That’s why I mentioned the “educating” the public part. Of course, you can’t really enforce the education, and people might simply vote uninformed.

But it wouldn’t be much of a problem unless a large portion of the population started doing it. The option of not voting at all would remain available, as it is now.

Maybe the government could track votes and issue tax credits for both educating yourself, proven by a quick test prior to casting your vote, and casting your vote.

Otherwise, how would you make important decisions with 0.5%of the vote participating on any given issue? Even if it is only due to corruption, at least politicians are incented to participate.[/quote]

I’d like to have a penny for every dollar in court costs that pile up if we have any kind of pre-requisite for voting in this country. As it sits now - you don’t have to speak the language, or be able to read or write.

Any departure from that will certainly result in massive civil suits.

You guys are thinking outside the box - but don’t lose your grip on reality.

44

Not too stupid, necessarily. Too uninformed, definitely – and given the constraints on time from things like work and family, I have serious doubts about whether most people would become informed about the details (a different question than whether they would understand them).

Look at California for example. They put quite a few ballot initiatives up for a vote, giving people the opportunity to decide those issues – and many, if not most, voters are basically uninformed on the details.

When you think about it, most voters are completely uninformed about even the basics of what a republican system requires: what are the positions of the people for whom they are voting on the relevant issues? Party affiliation provides some useful information, but certainly not the kind of specific information we would hope voters would consider.

And that is on major state-wide and federal issues. How many people know the records or general positions of the candidates for elected judicial positions in their state? For school boards? For the city counsel?

Maybe the incentives would be different if more actual issues were voted on – but I don’t think it would be enough to make a major difference.

I really think direct democracy can only work with a highly educated and informed voting population - and a government with limited authority that does not try to do too many things (and thus require too many decisions from the voters).

45

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I don’t think internet voting will be any less bitched about.

The current problems with computerized voting stem from bad implementation. Technologically, there’s nothing preventing us from doing it right.

For the sake of discussion, assume we can put in place a perfect, tamper-proof, fraud-resistant system. How does being able to vote all year long on whatever issue you want sound?

[/quote]

As long as what we vote for would transpire the way it is presented before the vote, I’m all for it. That is, the gov does exactly as we vote, not interpret the votes and act on the interpretations.

46

[quote]BigRagoo wrote:

As long as what we vote for would transpire the way it is presented before the vote, I’m all for it. That is, the gov does exactly as we vote, not interpret the votes and act on the interpretations.[/quote]

Or commissioned a poll to have the “experts” tell us all what we really wanted.

47

[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe the government could track votes and issue tax credits for both educating yourself, proven by a quick test prior to casting your vote, and casting your vote.

Otherwise, how would you make important decisions with 0.5%of the vote participating on any given issue? Even if it is only due to corruption, at least politicians are incented to participate.[/quote]

Maybe it’d be better with 0.5% of honest votes than corrupted “incentivized” politicians.

I think adding tests before every votes would make it too complicated. You’d then have to make sure it’s really the voter taking the test and that people don’t circulate “cheat sheets” to allow other dumbasses to “pack the vote.”

48

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’d like to have a penny for every dollar in court costs that pile up if we have any kind of pre-requisite for voting in this country. As it sits now - you don’t have to speak the language, or be able to read or write.[/quote]

People don’t go nuts because we expect them to take a driver’s exam and get a permit before they can drive. Why not a voter’s exam and permit too?

Better voters should make for better government, which is turn is better for everyone. Who would oppose that?

Not if it happens in a constitutional amendment, right?

Yeah, we’re just throwing fecal matter around to see what sticks.

Although discussing how to replace the system is a good way to think about it and realize that for all it’s warts, it might not be the worst thing there is. Maybe fixing the worst parts (eliminating undue influence and adding some more accountability for example) would be better than trying to replace the whole thing with a perfect democracy.

49

[quote]rainjack wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:

As long as what we vote for would transpire the way it is presented before the vote, I’m all for it. That is, the gov does exactly as we vote, not interpret the votes and act on the interpretations.

Or commissioned a poll to have the “experts” tell us all what we really wanted. [/quote]

Yes. This irks the HELL out of me.

50

Representative government has serious flaws which I won’t bother to specify, cause you gentlemen know them,
but direct democracy has one (and only one) titanic flaw: democracy.

The masses deciding directly what to do?
“How should we do about the immigrants. Hmmm, let’s see, possible checkboxes: 1 Ignore, 2 throw out, 3 educate and provide them with jobs, 4 dunno;
DAMN I clicked wrong!”

Some random thoughts:

there still will be parties to form long term political strategies.

the tyranny of the majority would be cemented.

The highest political caste, though, won’t retire that easily

51

I remember reading a quote once that said that Democracy’s great flaw can be solved by a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Most people I know vote because that’s the way their fathers or grandfathers voted. Very few actually concern themselves with the business of politics, or the economy, they just vote because they other party is a baby killer or a terrorist.

I would love a voting exam. There’s really no reason to not know the basics of politics… people will bitch and moan about the laws the politicians pass, but they are not concerned at all beforehand.

I myself am abstaining from voting if Hillary gets the nod this year. It might be my great surrender, like when George Carlin says he hasn’t voted since 1972… 2008 will be the year I give up on humanity and just try to get by on my own, the country be damned.

52

Voting exam is a great idea! My political science prof. would go on and on about the importance of voting, only if you are an educated voter, and know enough about the issues.

Anyways, Rove and others are resigning because Bush plans to use military action against Iran, which will be wildly unpopular. At least that it what I have read. I could be wrong.

Stink progress has an article stating that Snow just hinted at his resignation, and said that other high level officials will be turning in their card too.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/16/more-resignations-to-come/

53

[quote]pookie wrote:
Between elections, it’s also hard to get heard. You have demonstrations, but by and large, those are dismissed by the general population as being by fringe elements. It doesn’t help that many manifestants make a career out of it and are pretty loony to start with. Most people with a 9-5 job have difficulty devoting time to a cause.

You can write your representative; attend municipal and regional political meetings when these occur, but from experience, you get very little actually done from these. You can get noticed if you manage to bring a large enough group to a city council meeting that you can insure you won’t be ignored. [/quote]

One thing that I absolutely adore about Switzerland, is the ability of regular folks to pass “iniatives”. A person working 9-5 needs just draft a proposal, get enough people in the street to sign it, and it gets at the town, city, or state (canton and half-canton) level. That makes it the closest country to direct-democracy.

Had Bush been in Switzerland for example, you can bet the troops would be home by now. With the momentum the peace movement has gained these past couple of years and citizens as dedicated as Sheehan, there would have been a call for referendum already taking place.

Same thing about Iraq. Had Al-Sadr been a Swiss, a petition would have been passed on and there would have definitely been a general referendum on the oil act, American presence, or even splitting up the country into a confederation.

Please don’t read his as a pro-war anti-war argument. The thread is blossoming, and it would be a shame to turn it into yet-another-shit-fest. The only point I wanted to make, was that direct democracy limits abuses of governments and is IMHO, something that should be looked very seriously into. There are drawbacks and costs to that system of course, but the benefits are well worth it. Any thoughts?

54

[quote]lixy wrote:
The only point I wanted to make, was that direct democracy limits abuses of governments and is IMHO, something that should be looked very seriously into. There are drawbacks and costs to that system of course, but the benefits are well worth it. Any thoughts?[/quote]

You are correct that direct democracy limits abuses, but our problem in moving to a system like that is the gov. enjoys a lot of “frills” and extends them to friends. It will be hard to coerce those that are used to the fat system to propose changes and act on them. Being in the gov is guaranteed pay off, and there are those that will fight to keep it that way.

55

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
True – but right now people are mostly voting for representatives who will decide individual issues. I think the education problem would be much more of an issue if we moved closer to direct democracy.

pookie wrote:
Are you saying people are too stupid to govern themselves?

Maybe we could add a few safety devices, such as requiring an absolute majority (or even large) for particularly delicate decisions.

For example, going to war might require a double majority; whereas removing a few words from the pledge would be fine with any majority, as long as it’s the most popular choice.

Not too stupid, necessarily. Too uninformed, definitely – and given the constraints on time from things like work and family, I have serious doubts about whether most people would become informed about the details (a different question than whether they would understand them).

Look at California for example. They put quite a few ballot initiatives up for a vote, giving people the opportunity to decide those issues – and many, if not most, voters are basically uninformed on the details.

When you think about it, most voters are completely uninformed about even the basics of what a republican system requires: what are the positions of the people for whom they are voting on the relevant issues? Party affiliation provides some useful information, but certainly not the kind of specific information we would hope voters would consider.

And that is on major state-wide and federal issues. How many people know the records or general positions of the candidates for elected judicial positions in their state? For school boards? For the city counsel?

Maybe the incentives would be different if more actual issues were voted on – but I don’t think it would be enough to make a major difference.

I really think direct democracy can only work with a highly educated and informed voting population - and a government with limited authority that does not try to do too many things (and thus require too many decisions from the voters).
[/quote]

Agreed. For anything but maybe a city-state, direct democracy is a bad, bad idea.

56

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I remember reading a quote once that said that Democracy’s great flaw can be solved by a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Most people I know vote because that’s the way their fathers or grandfathers voted. Very few actually concern themselves with the business of politics, or the economy, they just vote because they other party is a baby killer or a terrorist.

I would love a voting exam. There’s really no reason to not know the basics of politics… people will bitch and moan about the laws the politicians pass, but they are not concerned at all beforehand.

I myself am abstaining from voting if Hillary gets the nod this year. It might be my great surrender, like when George Carlin says he hasn’t voted since 1972… 2008 will be the year I give up on humanity and just try to get by on my own, the country be damned.[/quote]

Feel the same way if the Republicans nominate Rudy or Romney (highly likely), but figure writing someone in, even as a joke, is better than abstaining.