Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although in dire worst case scenarios that potential might be true though highly improbable, I would estimate that the number of such convicted felons is now close to zero. Whereas the class of convicted felons who are murderers, rapists, pedophiles and armed robbers without voting rights runs into the hundreds of thousands. And of course those persons would all vote democratic since they know who is the weakest on crime and punishment and places the rights of criminal perpetrators higher than that of victims.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although in dire worst case scenarios that potential might be true though highly improbable, I would estimate that the number of such convicted felons is now close to zero . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the number must easily be in the hundreds of thousands, if not the millions. A large fraction of our prison population is made up of political prisoners who have never stolen a dollar or doughnut nor harmed anyone, but who upon their release cannot vote out the despicable [censored] who ruined their lives.

Great system.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Oh, so now drug dealers are political prisoners? Call Amnesty International!

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, so now drug dealers are political prisoners? Call Amnesty International!

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way are they not?

Thanks for making my point, by the way.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize you have to actually commit a real crime before you can be considered a convicted felon, right? Last time I checked, "vaguely undermining national interests" wasn't a crime.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In what way are they not?

Thanks for making my point, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the way where dealing drugs is illegal.

Should we escort them to the polls with armed guards or should they get absentee ballots like the military?

If they get absentee ballots, can we try to disqualify them like we do to the military?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Although I don't use drugs, I personally believe that pot and some other drugs should be legalized. Nonetheless, even low level dealers who never participate in violence are part of a network/class that uses violence against rival dealers and against members of law enforcement and witnesses. They thus share culpability in perpetuating that violence because they chose to commit those illegal acts rather than get a job.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Ah. So even though person A does not commit a violent crime, he should be imprisoned, and lose his franchise (since that's the point of the thread), because someone else does? This is justice?

Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

None of your post does anything to show that non-violent drug offenders are not political prisoners (which of course they are), nor that denying them their franchise upon their release plainly affects whether pro-drug war incumbants can be voted from office, and hence, whether the laws can be changed. Which was my point.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

And yes those as yet non-violent drug dealers should bear some of the responsibility because they are in fact implicit conspirators in the crimes of the violence of the drug network.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ah. So because person A commits a crime, he should be imprisoned

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[ QUOTE ]
This is justice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is.

[ QUOTE ]
None of your post does anything to show that non-violent drug offenders are not political prisoners

[/ QUOTE ]

And none of your posts do anything to show that they are.

[ QUOTE ]
(which of course they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "of course they are" you mean "I believe they are, but I haven't proven so," then yes - I agree completely.

[ QUOTE ]
nor that denying them their franchise upon their release plainly affects whether pro-drug war incumbants can be voted from office, and hence, whether the laws can be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Candidate A says drugs should be legal, but that everything else should be completely opposite to what you, Borodog, believe it should be.

Candidate B says drugs should stay illegal, but everything else should be exactly as you, Borodog, believe it should be.

Do you really think this person, who is ignorantly voting for someone for one reason alone, particularly the fact that he likes breaking the law, and ignoring everything else that is far more important, is making an informed decision?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

While we're on that topic, I think rapists should have their voting rights restored as well. After all, the only reason they raped their victims is because the government said women can deny sexual consent.

Let's also restore armed bank robbers' voting rights as well. The only reason they took that money by force is becase the government said they couldn't just walk in and ask for it.

I get a tear in my eye every time I think about all these political prisoners.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

A tiny fraction of violent drug offences are made up of the murder of police officers, judges, prosecutors, or witnesses. This is a strawman. The bulk of drug trade related violence is associated with settling contract and territorial disputes, which is what happens when you are denied access to the courts and any peaceable means of settling those disputes. This, by the way, is why criminal organizations often develop private arbitration mechanisms to avoid unneccesary bloodshed over contract and territorial disputes.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes those as yet non-violent drug dealers should bear some of the responsibility because they are in fact implicit conspirators in the crimes of the violence of the drug network.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, the police officers, judges, prosecutors, and most importantly the politicians should bear the brunt of the blame, since the violence wouldn't exist without their politically motivated war on citizens. Those same politicians that are less likely to be voted out of office because they continue to disenfranchise voters who would likely vote against them. As I've said.

And for the record, any politician, police officer, prosecutor, or judge who has participated in imprisoning American citizens and ruining their lives for the "crime" of commerce deserves to eat a bullet anyway.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

While we're on that topic, I think rapists should have their voting rights restored as well. After all, the only reason they raped their victims is because the government said women can deny sexual consent.

Let's also restore armed bank robbers' voting rights as well. The only reason they took that money by force is becase the government said they couldn't just walk in and ask for it.

I get a tear in my eye every time I think about all these political prisoners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rapists and bank robbers have victims, brainiac.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that no one here can make a compelling argument in favor of EVERYONE who is currently eligible to vote is competent enough to make an informed decision

[/ QUOTE ]

People make bad decisions all the time. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to make the decision.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah. So because person A commits a crime, he should be imprisoned

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[/ QUOTE ]

Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of your post does anything to show that non-violent drug offenders are not political prisoners

[/ QUOTE ]

And none of your posts do anything to show that they are.

[ QUOTE ]
(which of course they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "of course they are" you mean "I believe they are, but I haven't proven so," then yes - I agree completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

The act they are imprisoned for - trading some chemicals or some plants for some money - is a voluntary exchange of private property between two consenting adults. What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal.


[ QUOTE ]
Candidate A says drugs should be legal, but that everything else should be completely opposite to what you, Borodog, believe it should be.

Candidate B says drugs should stay illegal, but everything else should be exactly as you, Borodog, believe it should be.

Do you really think this person, who is ignorantly voting for someone for one reason alone, particularly the fact that he likes breaking the law, and ignoring everything else that is far more important, is making an informed decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for pointing out one of the big problems in our particular implementation of representative democracy. You can replace drug legalization for any "swing issue" and see why this system produces consistently crappy results.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
While we're on that topic, I think rapists should have their voting rights restored as well. After all, the only reason they raped their victims is because the government said women can deny sexual consent.

Let's also restore armed bank robbers' voting rights as well. The only reason they took that money by force is becase the government said they couldn't just walk in and ask for it.

I get a tear in my eye every time I think about all these political prisoners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that activities are "good" or "bad" based merely on what some elected group of monkeys decree?

Would you argue that drug dealing is a legitimate activity if it were legalized? Is the authorization all that you're impressed with?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think slavery is not a crime if some random person in a far away city says it's legal?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

And yes those as yet non-violent drug dealers should bear some of the responsibility because they are in fact implicit conspirators in the crimes of the violence of the drug network.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't happen with beer.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
People make bad decisions all the time. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to make the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

So 8 year-olds should be allowed to vote, too? When I was in elementary school and Bush Sr. was running against Clinton, the students were given an assignment to choose a side and create political ads. How did the students choose their sides?

"Well, my mommy and daddy are voting for Bush so I am too" or likewise for Clinton.

If these 8 year-olds used the same critical thinking skills as many 18+ voters do today to choose their candidate, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote too?

In fact, allowing children, who would choose their candidate based on what mommy and daddy say, to vote would be to the advantage of the Democratic party.

Can you see why?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

In that city it is, definitionally, not a crime.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Age is different than testing --- though, I agree that 18 is a somewhat arbitrary number. Nonetheless, some number must be chosen.

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, my mommy and daddy are voting for Bush so I am too" or likewise for Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think this changes when people get older? The number 1 predictor of how a person will vote is how their parents vote.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Neither does Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law

What's the difference?

[ QUOTE ]
The act they are imprisoned for - trading some chemicals or some plants for some money - is a voluntary exchange of private property between two consenting adults. What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is a terrorist buying a privately owned nuclear bomb from an insane dictator.

Or a 19 year-old kid buying some grenades and an assault rifle from some dude in a dark alley.

"What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal." It's not like they're hurting anybody.

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for pointing out one of the big problems in our particular implementation of representative democracy. You can replace drug legalization for any "swing issue" and see why this system produces consistently crappy results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if our representatives were selected by more competent individuals, we could take a big step towards improving our system of representative democracy.

Taking the sheep out of the equation would also take the dominance of the two party system out of the equation and give us better choices for representatives, governors, presidents, etc...

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the politicians should have to fill out a standardized questionaire. Instead, they are marketed by the same PR folks who make toothpaste commercials.

Nice to see the John Kerry smear campaign was effective. When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm George Bush, I change the facts to support my opinion.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Well since my thread has already irreversibly turned into a partisan mudslinging fest, I will put the final nail in the coffin.

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm George Bush, I change the facts to support my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm John Kerry, I change my opinion... period!

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Taking the sheep out of the equation would also take the dominance of the two party system out of the equation and give us better choices for representatives, governors, presidents, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have a two party system because stupid people vote. We have a two party system because of the winner-take-all mechanism by which we elect our officials.

EDIT: This idea is known as Duverger's law.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker (other than those hi/lo heathens), then it can't be bad for elections. Proportional representation systems just insure gridlock and instability. A look at the number of times the Italian governing coalition has fallen since WWII illustrates this point nicely. And what happens in those situations is that the effective power of unelected bureaucrats is magnified.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, any politician, police officer, prosecutor, or judge who has participated in imprisoning American citizens and ruining their lives for the "crime" of commerce deserves to eat a bullet anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again with this? They can't selectively enforce only the laws they agree with. But you think they still deserve to die?
Why do you and PVN still live in the US?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in (most) tournaments. And in cash games, the next game is only minutes (not years) away, and the "winner" doesn't win "all", he only wins all of the pot. Big difference.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again with this? They can't selectively enforce only the laws they agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You think this doesn't happen?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Neither does Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law

What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep reading your dictionary. Definition number 2:

[ QUOTE ]
2 : a grave offense especially against morality

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to do with legality.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The act they are imprisoned for - trading some chemicals or some plants for some money - is a voluntary exchange of private property between two consenting adults. What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is a terrorist buying a privately owned nuclear bomb from an insane dictator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possession of nuclear weapons *is* criminal. Weapons of mass destruction cannot be directed at individual aggressors, and therefore are not legitimate "arms".

[ QUOTE ]
Or a 19 year-old kid buying some grenades and an assault rifle from some dude in a dark alley.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any problem with this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for pointing out one of the big problems in our particular implementation of representative democracy. You can replace drug legalization for any "swing issue" and see why this system produces consistently crappy results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if our representatives were selected by more competent individuals, we could take a big step towards improving our system of representative democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your definition of "competent" is what, "people that agree with me"?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Actually, if I'm John Kerry, I change my opinion to suit whatever I think my current audience wants to hear. This is not unusual among politicians. Kerry just did it very badly and very obviously. I only voted for the idiot becuase I though he was a slightly less dangerous idiot than the one he wanted to replace. And it was close.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

In theory, I don't think some kind of qualification to vote is a terrible idea, whether it's some sort of test of intelligence, general knowledge, or even what Heinlein suggested in Starship Troopers, limitng the vote to people who had served in the military (under which I would not be qualified, btw). In practice, I think such a system could be easily manipulated, as the "literacy tests" in the southen states were to exclude black people from voting. Also, I think there is nearly zero chance of it ever happening in this country, because democracy and universal adult suffrage have become such sacred cows, even though the Founding Fathers considered it something to be feared.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, any politician, police officer, prosecutor, or judge who has participated in imprisoning American citizens and ruining their lives for the "crime" of commerce deserves to eat a bullet anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again with this? They can't selectively enforce only the laws they agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Of course they can and they do. The vast majority of laws go unenforced.

Part of the benefit of having a byzantine morass of uncountable thousands of laws is so that most citizens can be found to be violating some law or another most of the time, which can be enforced whenever this government officer or that bureaucrat finds it convenient or lucrative.

[ QUOTE ]
But you think they still deserve to die?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps "deserve" was too strong a word. But then again, perhaps it wasn't. Let's put it this way: they destroy tens of thousands of lives and families and get thousands of people needlessly killed each year. Why don't they deserve to die? Because they're "just doing their job?" Where have I heard that before?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you and PVN still live in the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe me, if there were anywhere better on Earth, I'd be there already. In the meantime, am I supposed to be happy that I only have a ball and chain on one ankle, and only one gun pointed at the back of my head, when I could easily have two?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Keep reading your dictionary. Definition number 2:

[ QUOTE ]
2 : a grave offense especially against morality

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to do with legality.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking about law and therefore must use the LEGAL definition of crime. A crime is an illegal act. Get over it.

Surely you have something more compelling than "boo hoo the 5th definition of the 3rd synonym in this obscure dictionary I found says I'm right!!!"


[ QUOTE ]
Possession of nuclear weapons *is* criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is possession of drugs.

I win.

[ QUOTE ]
Weapons of mass destruction cannot be directed at individual aggressors, and therefore are not legitimate "arms".

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. I only plan to use it for decoration. That actually makes it safer than drugs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or a 19 year-old kid buying some grenades and an assault rifle from some dude in a dark alley.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any problem with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

i.e., you have no problem with people breaking 4 of 5 laws simultaneously.... well... at least that's out in the open now.

[ QUOTE ]
So your definition of "competent" is what, "people that agree with me"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

My definition of "competent" is "people who have the ability to look at both sides of the major issues and make an informed decision about their candidate" as opposed to "everyone I know says to vote for <X>, so I'm going to vote for <X>" or "<X> says abortion is OK and we need to leave welfare alone, and since I already have 3 kids from 3 different fathers, none of whom I'm still with, and living off welfare, I'm going to selfishly vote for this guy.... even though I have not bothered to find out what the hell else he stands for which might not at all be good for this country."

If my candidate is the right candidate and more voters know what's going on, then more people will vote for him. Right now it's just a matter of who can pander to more demographics.... i.e., Republicans pandering to the wealthy and the religious + Democrats pandering to minorities and people looking for free rides (disclaimer: who are not necessarily one in the same, but I'll be awaiting your accusations of racism anyway).

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry just did it very badly and very obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite Bush mudslinging quote from the debates: "The only consistent thing about my opponent is the fact that he's inconsistent."

[ QUOTE ]
I only voted for the idiot becuase I though he was a slightly less dangerous idiot than the one he wanted to replace. And it was close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly confident he would have won if he had shown the same attitude DURING the campaign that he showed during his concession speech. He was a different John Kerry.

Fortunately, he was a condescending waffle-factory until it was too late and we were spared. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
limitng the vote to people who had served in the military (under which I would not be qualified, btw).

[/ QUOTE ]

This part I don't agree with. There are plenty of people who have not served in the military who are qualified to vote, and many who have who are not.

[ QUOTE ]
In practice, I think such a system could be easily manipulated, as the "literacy tests" in the southen states were to exclude black people from voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because "literacy tests" in the South were designed to exclude and there was nobody around to prevent that from happening. With all the of civil liberties groups out there for any demographic, the likelihood of an unfairly discriminatory test coming to pass is small.

I'm not talking about a lengthy, complicated, SAT-like procedure. Even a BASIC, FACT-BASED multiple choice & true or false test will significantly improve the voting pool.

You'll kill off hundreds of thousands of voters with a "Does the Constitution guarantee your right to an abortion [true/false]" question.

You'll probably kill off a million voters with this question:

"The Bill of Rights guarantees you the right to which of the following:
a) free education
b) free healthcare
c) a job
d) all of the above
e) none of the above"

Are people who don't even know what their rights are really qualified to choose who is going to help decide what everyone else's rights are for years to come?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think there is nearly zero chance of it ever happening in this country, because democracy and universal adult suffrage have become such sacred cows, even though the Founding Fathers considered it something to be feared.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I definitely agree.... none of this will ever happen unfortunately... but we can dream, can't we?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taking the sheep out of the equation would also take the dominance of the two party system out of the equation and give us better choices for representatives, governors, presidents, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have a two party system because stupid people vote. We have a two party system because of the winner-take-all mechanism by which we elect our officials.

EDIT: This idea is known as Duverger's law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Takes me back to my poli sci classes and the discussion of SMDP (single member district plurality) vs. MMPR (multi-member proportional representations) systems. I am astonished it's not better known, as it's not really all that hard to explain.

Janus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[Here's] Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Surely you have something more compelling than "boo hoo the 5th definition of the 3rd synonym in this obscure dictionary I found says I'm right!!!" Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both quotes are from the same poster.

1 2

Re: Janus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[Here's] Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Surely you have something more compelling than "boo hoo the 5th definition of the 3rd synonym in this obscure dictionary I found says I'm right!!!" Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both quotes are from the same poster.

1 2

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please.

He said that "crimes" and "illegal acts" were not the same thing. I looked up the definition of "crime" and the first definition clearly said that a crime was an illegal act.

He retorts by saying "oh, look at the OTHER definition - it mentions morality! That means illegal acts are not crimes!"

I'm clearly right here. Stop grasping at straws.