How do you feel about the system we have of voting?

[Don Gwinn]

1. Depends on where you live, because voting procedures are not monolithic. They're different everywhere. I live in Illinois, and here, I don't see how you could make it significantly easier or more convenient. You show up, sign your name, they give you a ballot. You walk into a polling booth, put your ballot in the holder, and use the stylus to poke a hole next to the name of each candidate you think should win. Should you be an idiot who can't handle this, there are written instructions about everything--they even warn you to use the small end of the stylus. Should you be an illiterate idiot, someone will talk you through it.

 

In third-world countries, if they get a chance to vote, people will stand in line as bullets fly past. I know a man who personally watched a line of people scatter as a government soldier in a jeep flying past heaved two grenades at them, then form back up and wait patiently. It took so long some of them waited four hours or more in the sun.

 

Americans whine about being too stupid to read a ballot.

 

2. Of course it's something of the past--that's when it was created. But it is not an anachronism, if that's what you're asking, and that does not make it bad or less useful. The Electoral College is an essential part of our process because it is the only thing standing between the urban, densely populated states and total domination of each and every election. You really want Chicago, LA, New York, and Philadelphia to decide every election? You want Montana, both Dakotas, and Idaho to have no voice at all? That's what a popular vote does.

3. Do you think the Popular vote should have more baring.

 

(example: Gore won the popular and Bush won the electorial.

 

Absolutely everything should have more baring. Voting is no different. Nude voting now! Nude voting now! Nude voting now! Nude. . . .

 

Oh, you meant bearing.

 

No, I don't. It has exactly the bearing on the result that it was intended to have, which is that the will of the people is influential, but the input of different regions also matters. Honestly, can't you think of any situation where New Yorkers and Chicagoans, for instance, might vote for things that would be disastrous for, say, South Dakota? I can.

 

Seriously, if you really want to abolish the Electoral College because it's unfair, have you thought about abolishing the Senate? After all, it runs on the same principle. The aim is exactly the same--to give California and Nevada the same number of Senators, even though California has more people, so that California cannot dominate Nevada politically and force unfair results in the Congress. And it works!

4. If you elect to keep the electoral collage do you think we should give a certain number of electors to the popular vote?

 

That's exactly what we do now, state by state. To change it in the way you suggest would, in effect, abolish the Electoral College. I disagree with it for the reasons listed above for that suggestion.

5. How would you change the system.

 

If I were in charge? Civics education in this country would have real teeth. Flunk civics (which would be required every year) and repeat it the next year. Nobody graduates until he has fulfilled every single civics requirement. Civics classes would begin in the 7th grade with the state constitution and progress through state laws (not law school, but basic familiarity) and then Federal Constitution and laws.

 

Also, I would do everything possible to break up the two-party system. It wouldn't be a solution, but it would provide more choices. Much as I hate Ralph Nader and the Greens, the fact that he couldn't participate in a debate was a joke. The Libertarians had to fight and struggle tooth and nail to get Cal Skinner on the Gubernatorial ballot in Illinois, and even then the Republicans have been working hard at smearing him with false allegations of child abuse! The main problem with our system is nothing as easy as "change this law, and we'll have utopia!" The main problem is that two giants sit at a table and divide up our nation every few years, and if you don't want one, people believe you have to vote for the other.

6. Do you think making it more than one day would help?

 

Help in what way? By adding the votes of people too stupid or too lazy to vote on Election Day? No. We already give more than one day to the only people who have a valid reason to need it--absentee voters.

7. Do you think adding an internet voting system would help and produce more of a turnout?

 

Absolutely. The turnout of dead cats and dogs in Chicago voting Democratic alone would probably double. A bigger turnout of legitimate, breathing voters? No. Just a lot more fraud.

8. How much of the "Im a Republican" "Im a Democrat" should be played into the voting. (In other words just because you are republican you vote for the republican.)

 

Obviously that's not a matter of public policy that can be changed (unless your panel wants to recommend a law forcing Republicans to vote for Democrats.) It's a personal choice. I often don't vote Republican OR Democrat, so obviously I could care less, but that's my choice. If you want to vote straight Democrat, I respect your right to do it.

9. Do you think the canidates personal lives should be kept out of the ads? With this one do you think the negative ads cause less voter turnout because people just start to not care?

 

That probably happens with a few people, but there's only one reason those ads run--they've been proven to work, time and time again. Draw your own conclusions about what that says about the American people, but no matter how much they bitch and moan, they respond to those ads and are persuaded by them in large numbers. If they weren't, no one would go to the expense and trouble of making them.

10. Would an Undecided help on the balloting? (this would make it so you don't have to vote on canidates your not sure on) For example if you dont know who you want for the pres but you do for the others on the ballot at that time, then you could go through and vote for who you want and pick undecided for the ones you dont know. This would also make it so the third party nominee doesnt get votes that could very well go to another canidate.

 

See, this is why I stressed education. Who ever told you that you can't do this? This is already an option and has been since the beginning of elections. If you don't want to vote for any of the candidates, don't cast a vote for that election. We don't need to add more choices to the ballots, we need to educate people on the choices they have.

11. Do you think this is an important issue? Take into consideration the Florida voting system. It has caused scandal twice now. The recent elections and the Presidential elections. (the weird thing is President Bushs brother (Jeb) is the gov of that state. (both times went towards republicans)

 

I don't mind being asked questions, but I get a little irritated when people ask questions just to get a given answer. The Florida voting system did not cause scandal. One party was desperate to find or create a scandal because they were losing, and they seized on the stupidity of voters in one part of Florida. However, they couldn't blame the voters for being idiots and still remain sympathetic in their victimhood, so they blamed the system. What they did not do, ever, to this very day, was provide one iota of evidence that the "system" had any part in causing any problems.

Edited October 4, 2002 by Don Gwinn

[shotochem]

Another political peeve, it is disgraceful how our elected officials bow down to special interest groups. I would do away with lobbists and soft money contributions. It seems when it comes to the senate and congress

 

their vote goes to the highest contributer. Our reps should be working in our best interest not theirs. The way to limit the damage these corrupt entrenched incumbents in BOTH parties is TERM LIMITS no office should be held for more than 2 consecutive terms. This would force our officials to produce and be held accountable. If they are inaffective the will not be able to hang on due to the wealth of incumbancy.

 

 

 

I really have to avoid politics I just get so

[Don Gwinn]

There are a few assertions of fact above that are false, and I'd like to address them in no particular order:

 

1. "Both elections went for the Republicans." No. The Presidential election did, and that was perfectly correct. Insinuate all you want, but can you tell me WHY you think the Republicans shouldn't have won that one?

 

The more recent election, as was pointed out above, was a Democrat primary. More importantly, when the dust settled, it was the candidate who was the biggest threat to Jeb Bush who won. Bush would have stomped Janet Reno's butt into a mudhole and walked it dry, and everyone knew it. If he were rigging the election, why not have her win?

 

2. "Gore won the vote, Bush won the election."

 

Actually, that's supposition that was never proven. Many places, like California, stopped counting votes when it became mathematically impossible for one candidate to catch the other in that state. Bush, for instance, clearly lost California's popular vote, and that's all that mattered since the electoral vote was winner-take-all. However, total up the remaining votes in all those states, and it is entirely possible that there were enough Bush votes left to show that he won the popular vote as well. You must also take into account the massive amounts of fraud perpetrated by the Democratic Party and, probably, the Republicans as well. In St. Louis, not far from where I live, the Democrats persuaded a Democratic judge that the lines at the polls had been too long for the last hour of the day (6:00-7:00 pm) and got him to order the polls kept open indefinitely--but only in St. Louis, where the Democrats dominate!

 

(St. Louis is so overwhelmingly liberal and so far out of touch that three years ago there was a referendum on whether to pass a Concealed Weapons bill. It passed in every county in the state except for St. Louis, but lost so big in St. Louis (after a convenient computer problem) that it still failed statewide. The Democrat Governor or Missouri, Carnahan, then refused to certify the results so that no official fraud investigation could take place.)

 

The upshot is that Democrats in St. Louis got in several more hours of voting after the rest of the state, which would have been overwhelmingly Republican, was forced to shut down.

 

3. When did "Special Interest Group" become a dirty word? You people really hate the NRA that much? AARP? Any of you Union workers? Is the ACLU evil? Special Interest Groups are nothing more than groups of citizens with a common concern who pool their resources. Nothing wrong with that at all.

[BlueDragon1981]

Don do you hate Democrats?

 

You sound like you do.

[BlueDragon1981]

Politics cause a lot of anger but the country thrives on the confliction of interests because everything is questioned and looked at 500 times before it even goes up to the presidential level. I just think people should look at what they believe more than what the political party is.

[BlueDragon1981]

Thanks for correcting my spelling Don. I don't spell very well. Never have no matter how hard I try. (all those dang homonyms)

 

Thanks for your views. This is for my class. It probably wont have much bearing though. Only a few people have responded. Don't get angry Don I think you may have swayed some from posting. Please people post your views.

[Don Gwinn]

I hope I haven't made anyone shy away. Everyone here spends his or her spare time getting punched in the face, right? Surely we can all deal with having someone express a different opinion.

 

No, I don't hate Democrats. I believe that most (not all) Democrats believe that they're doing the best thing for America. I disagree with them most of the time, though. If it makes you feel any better, I disagree with just about everybody most of the time. I believe in the power and the responsibility of human beings as individuals. I have no interest in joining a herd, a hive, or a collective, and I think it's insane to try to engineer a Nerf Utopia by writing a restrictive law for every possible circumstance. That scares the Hell out of most people for some reason. Are you familiar with the Libertarian Party? That's the closest thing to a party affiliation I have.

 

If you reread what I posted above, I think you'll find that there's nothing hateful about it. If I'm wrong, I'd like you to point it out. If you don't want to do so publicly, you can use email. I won't take it personally, I just wonder what sounded hateful to you. I realize that I am less than subtle when it comes to politics, but after all, politics is all about strong disagreements over what is to be done. I haven't flamed or insulted anyone, and I won't. And if there's anyone out there who isn't posting because you don't want to see my response, just say so. I don't have to respond to everything that's posted.

 

As for your spelling, don't sweat it. I was just making a small jest. If it hadn't presented the opportunity for a Nakedness Joke, I wouldn't have pointed it out at all.

[shotochem]

Hi Don, Ive been spending more time getting punched in the face than on my comp. I do not have a problem with the concept of the special interest group. Its just that they use their political clout in an extortionary way ie ACLU suing for every frivilous lawsuit it finds, boycotts by the NRA and Rainbow coalition ect... These groups may have started out with good intent and strove for fairness and equality but imo, they are just polarizing and labeling everbody. For every person there is a label or cause. The result is the special interest is being put ahead at the expense of the majority. Be it gun control, rights for the disabled. religious groups or affirmative action. Everybody wants a bigger piece of the pie. I dont want to hug a tree but, if we all put aside our petty differences and worked to help each other, there may be hope for us yet.

[Don Gwinn]

That sounds good, but people coming together to work for a common cause is exactly what gives rise to "Special Interest Groups." They're nothing more than groups of people who have a common interest. The NRA, for example. I often disagree with the NRA, and it certainly doesn't represent my views exactly--they spend way too much time compromising and they've written and proposed more gun control than they've prevented in the last 20 years. But I couldn't accomplish a thousandth of what they do by myself, because in a republic it's numbers that count.

 

I know what you're thinking--what about money? Well, for a grassroots group like the NRA, money comes from numbers and nothing else. Handgun Control Inc. likes to whine that the big, evil NRA has too much money and so too much influence, while poor little HCI is not so rich. But WHY does the NRA have so much money?

 

Simple--because they have almost 4 million members, and HCI might have 100,000 if you count the membership they absorbed from the Million Mom March. The only reason they're competitive at all is that they don't have to spend money to get their views heard like the NRA does; HCI can snap its fingers and have ten "journalists" ready to "do something about gun violence" come running to print whatever they say.

 

Does all that mean that HCI shouldn't be allowed to exist? Of course not! Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean that they don't have the right to ask for money or free press coverage, and those "reporters" have the right to write whatever they want.

 

I disagree strongly with the ACLU and I despise them for their hypocrisy and dishonesty, but I'm not willing to live in an America where citizens can't come together to accomplish political ends.

 

Finally, I must take issue with your "petty differences" comment. I doubt members of the NAACP or the KKK see racism as a petty difference. I know that I don't consider myself petty for fighting to see that my property and my right to defend myself are not stolen from me by well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) politicians.

[shotochem]

I doubt members of the NAACP or the KKK see racism as a petty difference. I know that I don't consider myself petty for fighting to see that my property and my right to defend myself are not stolen from me by well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) politicians.

 

Agreed those are certainly not petty. Its just the tactics not the concept that I have issue with. Everone has a right to look out in their own interest. Its when things are taken to the radical extreme, imo the problems start. Extremism in the world today is what led to the attacks here in NY. Perhaps if they had the same freedoms that we have here, they would not be as extreme??? or if we gradually slide towards extremism will we be more like them??? Does oppression or freedom lead to extremism or are they just two different paths to the same end???

 

Its a scary thought.