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

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Erik Aronesty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
>What if they are much too stupid and uninformed to vote?

Ah Mr Hamilton and Mr Hanncock, so good of you to appear. Ultimately it was 
decided to allow the mob to particiapte.

>
>>
>> People, feeling compelled to vote, would also feel compelled to talk
>> about voting. 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.
>
>Spoken like a true lefty... "force" people to vote whether they choose to or
>not, or whether there is ANY candidate they might even support.

Just have to ask why this proposal is lefty, I have heard those on the right 
offer similar ideas.

>
>>
>> It's a slow process.  But, I think, it's something that's nonpartisan,
>> and something that we can probably agree on.
>
>Not me. If people are too lazy, too irresponsible or too uninformed to make
>a choice or exercise their right than I pray God they stay home... they
>might vote for Hitler (or the Easter Bunny).

And what exactly is wrong with that?

>
>>
>> At the very least, we could begin to enact it on a state level - in as
>> many states as possible.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
>
>Of course you're wrong. Forcing or compelling folks to vote no matter what
>(under penalty) is totally inconsistent with the concept of democracy and
>freedom. Their first duty is to get informed enough to vote. Many simply
>aren't qualified and know it, or don't care enough to voice an opinion (also
>their choice).
>
>Do you really want hordes of stupid and uninformed people voting? Why not
>just let 13 year-olds vote if you really believe that? If we did we could pr
>obably get a new Department of Acne Control.
>
>

Talent on loan from Merck