Vadum: Poor people voting? That's Un-American!

[RavynousHunter]

I think we should make this thread into a drinking game. Every time cestlefun says the words "mathematically perfect," everyone downs a shot.

...We'd be drunk by the next page and a half.

[ragabash]

Sept 3, 2011 16:35:30 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

]There will always be strategic voting no matter what voting system is used. What exactly do you mean by polarization? Politics typically operate in two dimensions anyway (and seeing as most of the electorate is not as fascinated with politics as we may be, adding additional dimensions would make it even harder for the average person to keep up), third parties generally being assembled around a single issue or set of core issues, which if they ever gain any traction end up being incorporated into one of the two major party platforms.

Politics usually operate in only two dimensions? Even if you go by the system of two axis of Socialist-Capitalist Authoritarian-Libertarian this isn't true, as that doesn't cover issues such as environmentalism.
If you mean the old left-right system then the US is a prime example of why a two party system doesn't work, as you have two right wing parties (one centre right and one far right) running the show.
I would also argue that when there is a broad range of debate people do find politics more interesting. The trouble is that with most people only getting sources from corporate media, that naturally has a reason to shut out voices opposing the status quo, they get tired of hearing the minutae of the same general ideology argued in black and white terms.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

Cestle, I'll address the rest of your points later on (I had limited sleep last night, so I'm having difficulty formulating my thoughts into words), but I want to point out that up here in Canuckistan, having four major parties has, at the very least, made the left/right divide less black and white (which is partially what I'm referring to when I mention polarization), and in many cases has offered extra dimensions to political issues.

The BQ is one such example. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the reasoning behind the party's existence, they demonstrate how this kind of system is flexible enough to conform to the unique dynamics of a nation. It simply wouldn't suffice to call them liberal or conservative and leave it at that. Likewise, classifying them solely as separatists doesn't quite paint the whole picture -- they're not a single-issue party, despite accusations to the contrary.

Obviously, vote-splitting is an issue, but that only brings us back to alternative voting (which, as I said, I'll get into later -- I need my beauty sleep first ).

[ltfred]

I think the key argument of the article is anti-capitalism- that's right, anti-capitalism. He argues that it is illegitimate for people to put their self-interest ahead of the national interest. That idea is anti-capitalist. In capitalism, you are supposed to think of your own self-interest to some degree. Every company in the world puts its own self-interest ahead of its employees and customers (as much as it can). In the US corporations are required by law to do so.

He also argues that only the poor would put their interests ahead of the national interest and that welfare policy/unemployment benefits are bad for everyone except a few poor people, both total falsities.

Now to the article.

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because a) they want to win elections and b) it is not illegal nor illegitimate for a party to encourage people to vote for it.

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians.

Republicans do exactly the same thing with elderly Americans.

Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Least open actually. The poor have been shhown by studies to be the least selfish and most philanthropic.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals.

Burglary is a divine right, apparently.

It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population

Involuntarily nonproductive. Nobody chooses to be unemployed, but there is an unemployment rate. Governments are either unable or unwilling to make unemployment 0%. It is not the fault of those 10% of workers that the government can or will not do this.

The victims of macroeconomic policies are not responsible for it.

to destroy the country

The conspiracy theory- the natural refuge of the liar.

"When people are standing in line to get cheese and butter or unemployment compensation, you don't have to tell them how to vote" said Madison, now a radio talk show host in Washington, D.C. "They know how to vote."

If millions of people do not want to vote for your parties or policies, you may consider that the problem may not be with the people.

Encouraging those who burden society

Certainly the least honest description of the involuntarily unemployed I've ever heard, reminicent of fascist descriptions of Jews. This is explicit class war of the shooting kind.

to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor. It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money. It's about raw so-called social justice.

Why do conservatives believe they have a right to decide what is good for other people? Natural tyrannic tendency.

It's about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Nonsense. The founding fathers were certainly not 'small-government'. It's as accurate to describe them as Glibertarians as it is to describe them as communists; both are anachronisms.

the small-c communists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven

Neither are communists.

as I write in my new book, Subversion Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

Libel lawsuits pending.

In an infamous 1966 Nation magazine article, the radical university professors urged that the welfare apparatus be used to destroy the American system. Borrowing a phrase the ultra-leftist Leon Trotsky used in one of his many anti-Stalin tracts, The Platform of the Joint Opposition (1927), they titled their blueprint for radical change "The Weight of the Poor."

Firstly, isn't it hilarious how the great example of Obama's evil is one article two random sociologists wrote 50 years ago? I mean really! Sarah Palin is bad because look at at the Goldwater campaign's view of black people! What a great argument.

Secondly, this is just lies. He deliberately distorts what they actually wrote. They wanted the unregistered poor to register for welfare- which is perfectly legal and good. I agree. Everyone who is eligable for welfare should get it. The idea of this is not to 'destroy happiness and block out the sun' as conservative trolls lie, but to end poverty. Maybe it wouldn't work, but at least opponents should accept that good-faith goal of the (rather ad-hoc) plan?

By "weight," Cloward, Piven, and Trotsky meant power or influence. All three wanted to use the poor as a battering ram against the systems they sought to overthrow...

Stateside, Cloward and Piven wanted to use the "weight" of the poor to bring down American capitalism and democracy.

Of course not. Who could expect basic truthfulness from conservatism?

These apostles of depravity proposed swamping the welfare rolls of states and localities by encouraging people to exercise their welfare "rights" by applying for public benefits.

This is a pretty dishonest sentence. He's deliberately drawing connections between Welfare as a policy and welfare in reality. Perhaps the money required to continue life is not a right. However, there are currently policies in place that, agree or disagree, establish a right to money for some people. Those people have as much right to that money as a worker to his or her wage; if you don't want them to be provided money, end the policy.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy almost succeeded.

Nonsense. It was never even a strategy, more an idle thought experiment. Nobody had even heard of it until Glenn Beck falsified its contents.

Burgeoning welfare caseloads brought New York City to the brink of bankruptcy in the 1970s, a fact acknowledged two decades later by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani.

A conservative who doesn't like welfare, but does like blaming his own incompetance on a policy he wants to end! Who would have thunk it!

The movement was aided by Goldberg v. Kelly, a monstrously wrongheaded piece of judge-made law. In the landmark 1970 decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 3 that the "brutal need" of a poor welfare recipient outweighed society's interest in trying to prevent welfare fraud.

[/quote]

The actual law makes it illegal to remove welfare without evidence, evidence that has to be tested by someone capable of doing so. Obviously. Why is that even controversial? If you want to prove any other type of fraud- corporate fraud, say, which is several times more common and orders of magnitude more serious- you have to prove criminal behaviour to a judge or jury. You still don't have to prove welfare fraud in a court.

The Marxist duo said "massive numbers of new voters" had to be registered.

Hilariously wrongheaded.

the Motor-Voter law... also opened the door to massive voter fraud.

The law actually ended voter fraud. That was the point. But he doesn't care, because that fraud was committed (as with virtually all voter fraud) by Republicans.

The Founders anticipated redistributionist attacks on the Constitution. As Benjamin Franklin supposedly said,"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Franklin never said it, and shouldn't have. As an aristocrat, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't hold similar beliefs. The great enemy of the aristocrat, of the conservative and of the tyrant is allowing the vast majority of people the right to improve their life through a choice of government. Aristocrats do that; their divine right to money is demanded and supplied without destroying the Republic, but poor and middle-class must not be allowed to improve their lives. Only aristocrats have a right to selfishness above the national interest.

[Amaranth]

Sept 3, 2011 13:55:19 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

It's not so much they incur the same politics and policies, but changes to them come slowly and after more deliberation. Obviously the Democratic Party's platform from 2010 is not the same as 1950.

Actually, shifts tend to be rather quick and drastic. The Republican party has changed rapidly and drastically, providing the face that causes the problem you were on about. The Dems in 2004 were radically different from those in 2000. These are frequently interspersed with long periods of sameness, but your assertion that the parties see changes slowly is outright crap.

The flip in the "Dixiecrat" era was also very fast. If anything, more extremism is bred from having only two parties.

Certainly being mathematically flawless does not make it automatically the only correct option.

Which is moot, because you exited perfection already, so claims that you are speaking of mathematical perfection are false unless met with heavy qualifiers.

What version of "ranked ballots"? There are hundreds of different voting systems which used ranked ballots, none of which are monotonic, anonymous, and neutral. All three are, in my opinion, of vital importance. Monotinicity means that if you rank Candidate A higher than Candidate B, it will never hurt Candidate A. And likewise, if you rank Candidate A lower than Candidate B, it will never benefit Candidate A. Many ranked voting systems are not monotonic and can result in elections where a lesser preferred candidate actually wins over more preferred candidates. Anonymity means every vote is treated equally and carries the same weight. Neutrality means each candidate is treated equally. And the system must be "decisive" meaning it selects only one winner.

[citation needed]

Majority rules is the only system that satisfies all of these components. The downside, is that yes you have fewer candidates to choose from. The upside is that it is a fairer election. It depends on how you prioritize things.

Which is not mathematical perfection. OOH, you undercut yourself again.

More to the point, there is nothing saying a ranked ballot cannot satisfy all three. Ergo, Majority rules is not the only system that satisfies all these categories. Which is also moot, since we do not have a true majority rules system.

By absurd, I mean a less-preferred candidate actually being able to win the election. While some of our elected politicians are themselves absurd, their elections were not: they received more votes than any other candidate.

Except the Electoral College allows the minority to win out. I'm assuming you know that's true, since you conveniently skipped the reference to this, quote mined part of my statement, and then continued to assert the same falsehood as though you were explaining something new.

On the Presidential level, at the very least, your argument is shit.

[cestlefun17]

Politics usually operate in only two dimensions? Even if you go by the system of two axis of Socialist-Capitalist Authoritarian-Libertarian this isn't true, as that doesn't cover issues such as environmentalism.

How is environmentalism not covered in our political system? The Democratic Party has its platform on the environment; the Republican Party has theirs. There is no single-issue party with prominent power based solely on the environment. It wouldn't be desirable to me to have tons of different single-issue parties.

The BQ is one such example. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the reasoning behind the party's existence, they demonstrate how this kind of system is flexible enough to conform to the unique dynamics of a nation. It simply wouldn't suffice to call them liberal or conservative and leave it at that. Likewise, classifying them solely as separatists doesn't quite paint the whole picture -- they're not a single-issue party, despite accusations to the contrary.

This is really interesting actually and it is hard to conceptualize under the American system, sort of like trying to imagine what the fourth dimension looks like. Any third-party platform ideas that gain popularity here are usually incorporated into one of the two main party's platforms before the third party itself gains any power.

Obviously, vote-splitting is an issue, but that only brings us back to alternative voting (which, as I said, I'll get into later -- I need my beauty sleep first ).

The main point I'm trying to get across is that if you gain choices, you must sacrifice fairness. It's a balancing act. If you inject more than two viable candidates in a race, you will have an electoral system that is to some degree less fair. There are, as you point out, desirable societal and political advantageous that perhaps outweigh this.

Actually, shifts tend to be rather quick and drastic. The Republican party has changed rapidly and drastically, providing the face that causes the problem you were on about. The Dems in 2004 were radically different from those in 2000. These are frequently interspersed with long periods of sameness, but your assertion that the parties see changes slowly is outright crap.

The flip in the "Dixiecrat" era was also very fast. If anything, more extremism is bred from having only two parties.

You're right in that there are some instances of fast social change. The Republican Party has been on a downward spiral since the rise of the Evangelical movement in the 1980s. But I'm not so sure you can say more extremism is bred from two parties. With only two parties, both need to trend towards the middle to capture a significant number of voters. We're seeing a crop of crazy Republican contenders this year like never before, but we don't know yet if they are electable by the general public. I don't think you could call either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party "extreme" or "fringe" in comparison with parties like a Marxist-Socialist Party (which won the Brazilian presidential election recently) or a Nationalist Party (which has several seats in many European legislatures). The two-party system means that a party like one of those couldn't just "pop up" and come into power in the course of an election.

[citation needed]

This has been published in various papers and is known as "May's Theorem" as it was proven by Kenneth May in the 1950s. There is also Arrow's Impossibility Theorem which proves that no voting system with more than two candidates can have an unrestricted domain, has no dictator voter, has Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternative. The study of voting systems is an incredibly complex field. It's not as simple as "everyone ranks their preference and the best guy wins."

Which is not mathematical perfection. OOH, you undercut yourself again.

Mathematically, yes. Perfect for society? Maybe not (depends on your opinion). In the mathematical field of voting systems there are things called "fairness criteria." This include things like monotonicity, independence of irrelevant alternatives, and possession of a Condorcet winner. There is only one voting system which possesses every single fairness criteria.

The societal effects of these voting systems and how they affect the government and local politics lands in the field of sociology and political science. It doesn't make those concerns less valid, it just puts them in a different category. It depends on how you prioritize things. I personally feel a fair election is paramount. I would not want to support a voting system where people could accidentally vote in Candidate B by ranking Candidate A over B (it sounds like it could never happen, but it can if a voting system lacks monotonicity!)

More to the point, there is nothing saying a ranked ballot cannot satisfy all three.

No such voting system exists (May's Theorem, expanded by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem), and furthermore it has been proven that no such voting system can exist. If you have come up with such a voting system, you are a genius and will have completely revolutionized modern democracy.

Which is also moot, since we do not have a true majority rules system.

You're right. It's plurality rules. I see this as a necessary evil. The government cannot (nor should it) ban third parties as this would be undemocratic, but at the same time it channels people naturally into a two-candidate system without totalitarian measures.

Except the Electoral College allows the minority to win out. I'm assuming you know that's true, since you conveniently skipped the reference to this, quote mined part of my statement, and then continued to assert the same falsehood as though you were explaining something new.

A candidate must win a majority of the total number of Electoral Votes. I hope you're not referring to the popular vote in a Presidential election: that's just a statistical curiosity and has no legal meaning. The People of the United States do not, nor have they ever, elected the President of the United States. But whether or not this is a good thing is a subject for another thread.

[nickiknack]

Sept 3, 2011 8:33:32 GMT -5 the sandman said:

The comments section of that article is astonishing.

:...ibelieve that the vote should be limited to people that own property or a business."

"As I remember, after the country was formed only property owners could vote. Now non-citizens vote. My vote is canceled by any number of vagrants."

"Why are 18 year olds allowed to vote?"

"I've said all along we need LESS people voting. The conservatives should push for poll taxes."

" no voting for anyone who has received government assistance in the past year, and no sufferage for anyone who cannot read."

"Every person's vote [should be] weighted according to how much they paid in taxes. Everyone gets a default value of one. So of [sic] that evil CEO paid $750,000 in taxes, his vote would be the equivalent of 750,000 voters who paid nothing."

"Unless you pay taxes, you should not be permitted to vote."

"I think that only those who are veterans - people who have at some point made it plain they were willing to die for this country - should have the franchise."

" Put a sack of flour, of sugar, of coffee at city hall. They can come and get it. If they want more - they can get a job."

"We should not only purge welfare slackers and other un-Americans from the voter rolls -- including anyone who is unemployed and therefore not a producer, but voting should be proportional depending on net worth or taxes paid. "

Luckily, if you read down the comments far enough you get to some people who recognize what an elitist asshole the writer is, and a few who remember we have a 24th Amendment.

You know everytime I see comments like these I lose whatever faith that I had left in humanity...one has wonder how many of these jackasses have used some form of gov't assistance in the past, but have been living on the conservative kool-aide for so long they've lost all memory of it...

[nickiknack]

Also I want to hug this person, possibly make out with them...

You folks who agree with this asinine article will be the first ones to bitch when you lose your job and can't get unemployment insurance, health insurance and food stamps after your guys get rid of any support for the poor. You'll also still be paying taxes when you scrape up enough for a new pair of shoe's for your job search. Karma's fun to watch.

You people need to be slapped silly. show more show less

[RavynousHunter]

Its Randian objectivism in its purest, shittiest form. Not that objectivism itself isn't shitty, because it most certainly is. As has been stated before, they're basically of the "fuck you, I got mine" mentality.

[canadian mojo]

Sept 3, 2011 9:32:01 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

(To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not at all a fan of the Canadian system of government, for many reasons other than the multiple parties.)

This should be amusing.

Why?

Personally, when it come to electoral reforms, the best thing either of our countries could do would be to put an actual 'none of the above' option on the ballot.

[lighthorseman]

I think there SHOULD be people allowed greater voting power, however, I would assign more votes to an individual based on intelligence rather than financial worth.

No, I don't know what method of intelligence indicator would be best. But yes, I am hyappy to see people who are poor and stupid given less opportunity to fuck things up with their ignorant uninformed voting than those of us who have half a brain. Everyone gets one vote for being alive, any more than that, you have to prove you are capable of handling the responsibility. Yes, I realise this makes me only one step shy of the "no sufferage for anyone who cannot read" guy.

Also, how ironic is it that that guy misspelled "suffrage"?

[itachirumon]

Sept 3, 2011 21:56:22 GMT -5 RavynousHunter said:

Its Randian objectivism in its purest, shittiest form. Not that objectivism itself isn't shitty, because it most certainly is. As has been stated before, they're basically of the "fuck you, I got mine" mentality.

Correction: Fuck you, I've got mine, and I'd rather cut off my nose to spite my face and lose it all than have to share even one penny of it with you.

[nickiknack]

Sept 3, 2011 23:17:21 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

I think there SHOULD be people allowed greater voting power, however, I would assign more votes to an individual based on intelligence rather than financial worth.

No, I don't know what method of intelligence indicator would be best. But yes, I am hyappy to see people who are poor and stupid given less opportunity to fuck things up with their ignorant uninformed voting than those of us who have half a brain. Everyone gets one vote for being alive, any more than that, you have to prove you are capable of handling the responsibility. Yes, I realise this makes me only one step shy of the "no sufferage for anyone who cannot read" guy.

Also, how ironic is it that that guy misspelled "suffrage"?

The thing is that it would be very hard to determine intelligence, because everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. The problem is a lot these people aren't dumb per se, they're just more than willing to cut off their noses to spite their face.

[RavynousHunter]

Because the talking heads make attractive and vehement arguments that sound good to them, then fire them up with emotional appeals and such. Its straight from Manipulation 101: Appeal to people's emotions, and at least some of them will be willing to turn off their brains.

[lighthorseman]

Sept 3, 2011 23:36:14 GMT -5 nickiknack said:

Sept 3, 2011 23:17:21 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

I think there SHOULD be people allowed greater voting power, however, I would assign more votes to an individual based on intelligence rather than financial worth.

No, I don't know what method of intelligence indicator would be best. But yes, I am hyappy to see people who are poor and stupid given less opportunity to fuck things up with their ignorant uninformed voting than those of us who have half a brain. Everyone gets one vote for being alive, any more than that, you have to prove you are capable of handling the responsibility. Yes, I realise this makes me only one step shy of the "no sufferage for anyone who cannot read" guy.

Also, how ironic is it that that guy misspelled "suffrage"?

The thing is that it would be very hard to determine intelligence, because everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. The problem is a lot these people aren't dumb per se, they're just more than willing to cut off their noses to spite their face.

It MAY be wishful thinking on my part, but I do believe that the whole crab bucket/tall poppy mentality is something that less intelligent are prone to buying into. I also believe that more intelligent people are more likely to think of other people's best interests, as well as their own. Call me naiive if you will.

And yes, I know that there are difficulties with the various forms of intelligence test. However, I still think that things could only improve when people who are generally more intelligent and informed wield greater voting power than those who are less so.