Conditional Suffrage?

[elwoodblues]

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

[elwoodblues]

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.

[Warik]

[ 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...

[CORed]

[ 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.

[Warik]

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!

[Ed Miller]

[ 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.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[Rduke55]

[ 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?

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You think this doesn't happen?