US elections (Was: Organization Poll on the KCLUG Forums)

[Luke -Jr]

On Wednesday 19 March 2008, David Nicol wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Julie <betelgeuse67stang at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >  We all have a
> > constitutional right to complain but no constitutional duty to vote.
>
> As I understand it, there is a fine imposed on Australians who don't show
> up to participate in national elections.
>
> I am in favor of instituting such a system in the u.s.

Why? The elections are just a scam anyway. There's one party posing as two and 
even if another party DID manage to get votes (which will never happen 
because nobody thinks it's possible), the main party can easily cover it up 
and make it look like they didn't.

US elections exist to give us a false sense of control over things.


On Wednesday 19 March 2008, James R. Sissel wrote:
> Funny, I'm in favor of making them take a test on US History and the
> Constitution BEFORE they can vote.

Why would this country do that? The Civil War was fought by the federals to 
overturn the Constitution, and unfortunately they won. If we were to go by 
the Constitution, it would still be legal for any state to secede from the 
union.

> Also, anyone taking money from the government (employee, welfare, social
> security) can't vote.  It's a conflict of interest.

You'd need to be careful how you define "taking money". Probably the most 
reasonable way would be along the lines of "money from government to 
individual is greater than money from individual to government (taxes)".
Of course, that definition has flaws too-- should someone who has got off 
welfare need to pay it all back before they can vote again?

If 'social security' was what it claimed to be (mandatory savings for 
retirement, more or less), it would certainly be unfair to punish someone for 
making withdrawls from that savings once they're allowed to.