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

[RavynousHunter]

Or, instead of being elitist pricks about it we could, I dunno...educate them?

[lighthorseman]

Sept 4, 2011 0:04:32 GMT -5 RavynousHunter said:

Or, instead of being elitist pricks about it we could, I dunno...educate them?

I strongly endorse any and all efforts to remove any barriers to learning.

The sad fact remains that half the population have below average intelligence, and that more people again actively resist learning, whatever their native intellect may otherwise be.

[clockworkgirl21]

My uncle believes only people who own property and have a job should be able to vote.

Blah.

[lighthorseman]

Sept 4, 2011 1:03:56 GMT -5 clockworkgirl21 said:

My uncle believes only people who own property and have a job should be able to vote.

Blah.

Anyone who's ever been laid off, or knows someone who has been laid off, should be able to tell you why that is a crock.

[ltfred]

Sept 3, 2011 23:50:58 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

I also believe that more intelligent people are more likely to think of other people's best interests, as well as their own.

Studies suggest that poorer Americans are more likely to be philanthropic and think less of themselves than rich Americans. Poor Americans are less well-educated than rich Americans.

It's also true that better-educated Americans were more likely to support unnecessary, violent invasion of other people's countries than poorly-educated Americans.

Edit: has anyone wondered why aristocratic societies in Europe and the US brought in near-universal sufferage at the same time? It was in an attempt to build legitimacy for their governments (this is also when nationalism was invented, and national languages were codified). US/European aristocracy was rightly afraid that poor non-citizens, having no stake in the system, would break it through revolution and replace it with something better for them.

Democracy is the successful attempt of the rich to manage class war- the poor get the right to live, the middle class get a home and reasonable wealth and the rich get everything else. What this class warrior above doesn't realise is that his class is outnumbered hundreds of thousands to one. If the poor (rightly) think they have no stake in the system, if the middle class (rightly) see their standard of living dissapearing, if both see the wealthy stealing all their earned income, then they'll just shoot you and replace your bullshit with something else.

[Yla]

Sept 3, 2011 15:49:55 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

FPTP should also not be confused with "Majority Rules," which is essentially FPTP but with only two candidates. It is only this form of FPTP that satisfies all conditions of fairness.
[...]
What you're describing is not a FPTP system because it does not result in a single winner (rather it would result in 435 winners simultaneously to fill all the House seats).

So you're arguing about the advantages of a system which are only valid under assumptions not given in reality.
The election might be fair, anonymous, etc. when regarding the single district. But regarding the result for the entire nation, these qualities fall apart.
The two-candidate assumption is not reasonable. Even in the US, third candidates do exist. And in the UK, we have perverted results all the time(as mentioned above, 20% of the vote translating to 8% of the seats for the LibDems).

[cestlefun17]

This should be amusing. Why?

As I said in another post, the concept of a monarchy, lack of separation of powers, most civil rights are not inalienable. We're already off-topic so it would probably be best to start another thread if you want to discuss this at length.

The election might be fair, anonymous, etc. when regarding the single district. But regarding the result for the entire nation, these qualities fall apart.

This is entirely irrelevant because there is no such thing as a nationwide election in the United States. If 56% of people vote for Republican Representatives, it does not (nor should it) follow that Republicans have 56% of the House seats. Representatives do not represent the entire country; they represent only one district and need only concern themselves with the needs of the people of that district. So if the election is fair, anonymous, etc. when regarding the single district, that's all that matters.

The two-candidate assumption is not reasonable. Even in the US, third candidates do exist.

You're right. As I said in another post, I see this as a necessary evil. It would be undemocratic to outlaw third parties, so using FPTP naturally induces us into a two-party system without using totalitarian measures. Occasionally a candidate will win with less than 50% of the vote (like the 2010 4-way Rhode Island gubernatorial election) but this usually the exception, not the rule. I would have no problem with your suggestion of adding a "None of the Above" option or a rule saying a candidate must receive more than 50% of the vote (with an appropriate measure in the even such a percentage isn't achieved.)

[terri]

While I lived in NC, my then-boss was a friend of our local state representative... who was quite elderly and carried around an oxygen tank piped to his nose. This staunch Republican, conversing privately with the boss, talked openly about how he wanted to go back to the federalist period where only rich landowners could vote.

[scotsgit]

Sept 4, 2011 13:07:48 GMT -5 terri said:

While I lived in NC, my then-boss was a friend of our local state representative... who was quite elderly and carried around an oxygen tank piped to his nose. This staunch Republican, conversing privately with the boss, talked openly about how he wanted to go back to the federalist period where only rich landowners could vote.

You know, if they went down that road, how long before they bring in a monarchy?

[ragabash]

Sept 4, 2011 8:36:36 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

You're right. As I said in another post, I see this as a necessary evil. It would be undemocratic to outlaw third parties, so using FPTP naturally induces us into a two-party system without using totalitarian measures. Occasionally a candidate will win with less than 50% of the vote (like the 2010 4-way Rhode Island gubernatorial election) but this usually the exception, not the rule. I would have no problem with your suggestion of adding a "None of the Above" option or a rule saying a candidate must receive more than 50% of the vote (with an appropriate measure in the even such a percentage isn't achieved.)

So you're just going to ignore that both parties are essentially owned by Wall Street then? Because of course if there are two parties they'd have to be polar opposites...
The two parties system might be self perpetuating, but it's failing the US. Lobbyists for large donors rule the show, to the point where, for example, massive financial fraud that lead to the housing bubble goes unpunished because to deal with the root of the problem would not be politically expedient. The blame has even been shifted in many peoples' minds to the minorities who dared to want to become home owners.
If you want to argue that the two party FPTP system is the best, then you need to show me how the Democrats are the party that is willing to stand up to Wall Street, regulate the business to prevent massive environmental and financial damage, cut military spending until the US is in line with other nations and institute progressive taxes in line with those of the boom times of the 1950's.
Until you can show me that the Democrats aren't Republican-Lites but a party that completely opposes the GOP agenda, you can drop this notion that a two party system will represent both sides. Sound fair?

[Hyperio]

I agree with ragabash here - Democrats are definitely not progressives or leftist. They're just less conservative and less extremist than Republicans. Democrats are not willing to actually address one of main reasons USA is in deep financial crisis - undertaxing of the rich and deregulation of financial markets.

[cestlefun17]

I agree with ragabash here - Democrats are definitely not progressives or leftist. They're just less conservative and less extremist than Republicans. Democrats are not willing to actually address one of main reasons USA is in deep financial crisis - undertaxing of the rich and deregulation of financial markets.

This isn't so much a problem with a two-party system, as if you replaced the Democratic Party with another, more liberal party, you'd have the polar opposites you desire but still only two parties. Your issue is with the Democratic Party in particular.

The problem is that Republicans, particularly Evangelical Republicans VOTE. They VOTE all the the time, every time. Which is why, despite being a minority, our politics revolve around them. The higher the voter turnout, the better the Democrats do (which is why Republicans are always trying to pass measures to suppress voters). So if voter turnout were 100% at every single election, perhaps Democrats would listen better to their liberal base. Instead they're trying too hard to court the bloc of moderate conservative voters who vote more often but are more susceptible to voting for a Democrat.

[Hyperio]

There is also the problem with BOTH parties being addicted to rich people's donations - even with 100% Democrat turnout US will get slightly less extreme plutocrats. Poor people seem to be unorganized (unions perceived as un-American, Churches preaching mostly "prosperity gospel", media are mostly in the hands of a few corporations). There is simply no good forum on a national scale for poorer majority.

Considering that Obama is all but deaf to the poor people's problems, I don't think that current crop of Dems are likely to attract people who actually interested in more than empty platitudes. There is no party representing the majority of US citizens - both ruling parties cater strictly to the needs of the richest 1% of Americans. And if you think otherwise, you didn't pay attention the budget cuts talks. (Yes, even Dems' "spinelessness" is easily explained with that many Dems in the Congress are millionaires THEMSELVES.)

[cestlefun17]

Considering that Obama is all but deaf to the poor people's problems, I don't think that current crop of Dems are likely to attract people who actually interested in more than empty platitudes. There is no party representing the majority of US citizens - both ruling parties cater strictly to the needs of the richest 1% of Americans. And if you think otherwise, you didn't pay attention the budget cuts talks. (Yes, even Dems' "spinelessness" is easily explained with that many Dems in the Congress are millionaires THEMSELVES.)

You're 100% right. But any political party, no matter how many there are, will require extensive funds to gain any traction on a national level. Simply adding more parties won't solve the problem, as those parties will still require campaign cash to rival the major two parties. This is a problem to be addressed by stricter campaign finance laws.

[brandonl337]

Sept 4, 2011 0:39:35 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Sept 4, 2011 0:04:32 GMT -5 RavynousHunter said:

Or, instead of being elitist pricks about it we could, I dunno...educate them?

I strongly endorse any and all efforts to remove any barriers to learning.

The sad fact remains that half the population have below average intelligence, and that more people again actively resist learning, whatever their native intellect may otherwise be.

umm, of course half of the population has below average intelligence, that's how averages work, if you did a study on intelligence and more than 50% were above average intelligence, you would have to redo the study because somewhere along the line, the math was severely screwed up.