Re: A simple proposition to fix democracy in U.S.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Aronesty) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> If we charged people a $200 federal tax penalty for failing to vote in
> a federal election, it would stir a subtle but powerful shift in the
> counciousness of the country.

Because not voting should be a viable option.

Because government should not use its monopoly on force
to make people do something they don't want to do that
isn't otherwise illegal.

Because the left-wing already has tends to mobilize a
larger percentage of its eligible voters than the right
wing and forcing everyone to vote would almost certainly
create a massive right-ward shift in our government (to
many people this would be a good thing...).


> People, feeling compelled to vote, would also feel compelled to talk
> about voting. 

Not necessarily. 
In fact, that's really a staggering leap of logic.


> If only to complain about it! But that's OK. This talk
> would lead, over time, to political discussion and involvement. And,
> finally, a restoration of "Democratic" part of the Democratic Republic
> known as the United States.

The US government, at the federal level, was never intended to be 
democratic.  The executive is choosen by electors, who originally
were selected by whatever means the states choose, which in the
beginning was not popular election.

Senators were selected by the state's, not elected by the masses.

In the beginning, only 1/2 of 1/3 of the government was popularly
elected.

We already have too much democracy in this country - look at 
California!  We need less, not more.


Of course, the real question is: what are typical voter turn-out
rates for local elections.  That's what really matters and is the
only level where the country was really intended to be truly
democratic.


> It's a slow process.  But, I think, it's something that's nonpartisan,
> and something that we can probably agree on.

Nope, can't even agree on that :-p


> I would have said that we could start with California.  But now that a
> Republican is in charge, I doubt it would pass.  I'm not sure that
> Republicans really want people to vote.  I think they'd rather just
> run the show and have nobody vote at all.

That's rather very wrong.  It was, for example, republicans who
brought the vote to women and minorities.  Republicans have ALWAYS
supported voting rights.  

Which party was it that violated NJ election law in 2002 by 
substituting Lautenberg for Toricelli after the deadline for
such things had passed?

Which party does the Daley family belong to, the family that
relies so heavily on voter fraud?  And which party benefits
from that voter fraud?

Which party is it that illegal immigrants tend to vote for, and
which party is it that supports the "right" of illegal immigrants
to vote in the first place?  And which party helps them to vote
even though it is illegal for them to do so?

To which party did Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall belong?

Lyndon Johnson's 1948 Senate victory?


Clearly one must conclude that the democrats hate democracy.
Mayhaps the republicans do too, but you certainly can't deny 
the democrats hatred of it.

What we REALLY need is to dump both parties and get some new
people into power.  It likely can't be any worse, and it may
very easily be vastly better.