Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

The right way to vote

slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 2:04:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Local Gov = Democrat
you want your county to have decent programs to clean up the riff raff.

State & Federal Executive and Legislature Branches= You have to balance this to try to ensure the Executive and Legislature branches never are of the same party so they can't do too much damage.

Judiciary = Libertarian
Need the best odds of rejecting the crap that Republicans and Democrats come up with. IE: If the Republicans want to put you in jail for burning a flag and the Democrats want to take away guns. Or they both want to label you a terrorist and either lock you away without representation or drop a bomb on you while you visit Yemen with absolutely no oversight.

I'm calling BS on voting on the issues and enlisting a different methodology to use your vote in a more complex manner. This is the 21st century folks not some dark ages vote for who is going to run the castle.

"Frederick will collect less grain from the farmers who can then sell it and then create jobs when they spend it. Sir Daniel will collect more grain to share with all to ensure nobody goes hungry"

That is BS. Don't vote the micro issues, vote the big picture consequences. A straight ticket vote is a vote for hell.

Fine, fine I'm a little facetious, but I have been warming up to this way of voting in the past couple years.
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:05:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 2:04:12 PM, slo1 wrote:

"Frederick will collect less grain from the farmers who can then sell it and then create jobs when they spend it. Sir Daniel will collect more grain to share with all to ensure nobody goes hungry"



Correct me if i'm wrong but you are saying that you want people to take care of people no real money?

So farmers feed the word seamstress, clothe us, ect?
Me
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:16:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 3:05:31 PM, yoda878 wrote:
At 8/22/2012 2:04:12 PM, slo1 wrote:

"Frederick will collect less grain from the farmers who can then sell it and then create jobs when they spend it. Sir Daniel will collect more grain to share with all to ensure nobody goes hungry"



Correct me if i'm wrong but you are saying that you want people to take care of people no real money?

So farmers feed the world seamstress, clothe us, ect?

Fixed
Me
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 6:18:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This post offends me for some reason...
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 6:55:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 6:18:27 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This post offends me for some reason...

same here, and its because he tries to tell us how to vote, and then does a sh*tty job trying to explain his reasoning
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 7:08:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I vote for who I want kthxbye
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 7:16:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 7:08:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I vote for who I want kthxbye

except you can't vote
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 7:17:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 7:16:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/22/2012 7:08:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I vote for who I want kthxbye

except you can't vote

You can't vote.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 7:20:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 7:17:10 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/22/2012 7:16:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/22/2012 7:08:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I vote for who I want kthxbye

except you can't vote

You can't vote.

And?...I'm not the one giving the OP a snappy comeback. Put the comment in context.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 7:37:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 7:17:10 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/22/2012 7:16:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/22/2012 7:08:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I vote for who I want kthxbye

except you can't vote

You can't vote.

I CAN :D
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 9:56:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 7:37:24 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/22/2012 7:17:10 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/22/2012 7:16:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/22/2012 7:08:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I vote for who I want kthxbye

except you can't vote

You can't vote.

I CAN :D

God help us all.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 4:43:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 6:18:27 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This post offends me for some reason...

Good I'm glad you are offended.....well.....maybe not.....why you offended?

That is a rhetorical question. Hear me out here. First and foremost I'm not telling folks who to vote for. What I am saying is that the process that each and everyone of us has been taught to choose our candidates by selecting the one that best matches how we stand on the issues is wrong.

What I am advocating is to step out of that paradigm and instead take a holistic view of local, state, and national politics and vote the consequences, which then opens a whole realm of possibilities. Why?

1. Typically in the current process of vote decision results in a person voting the same party across the board or very similar views. There is no perfect party or match in belief to a particular party. The more politicians there are of one party the good things get accentuated but also the bad/wrong beliefs get accentuated.

It could even be argued that if all public offices, local, state, & national were filled with the same party or very similar beliefs it could be disastrous. An extreme example may be if all public office was all libertarians. There literally could be armed insurrection if all the social programs at a state, local, & national level were dismantled.

2. This scheme only works if one is vested in all public elections. When you vote using this process you are just as engaged in the local school board election as the national elections. It reduces apathy.

3. It balances a diverse school of thought. Pick up any diversity magazine and you will get example after example of how diverse thought is much more effective at problem solving than a group who all thinks the same.

4. It allows you to "win" more. Nothing is more frustrating than wanting to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate when you live in TX or voting for the Republican candidate for President when living in NY. By using my scheme you will not always be voting for a long shot and when you win more often, it will keep you engaged.

5. Lastly, and very importantly, this opens up more viability with the 3rd parties. You don't have to feel like you are giving up a vote to avoid when voting for a 3rd party.

6. It virtually eliminates negative campaigning. I don't care about your taxes paid or other inconsequential bs. I just want to know what you advocate so I can see how to best balance it with all the other offices I also vote on.

Try this one one (over simplified, but illustration). Republican at national to support anti abortion legislation at a national level. Democratic at state level to ensure strong level of support for social system needed to handle all the new babies that would be born to mothers who are reluctant with having them. Then maybe Green party at local level to get more acceptance of medical marijuana in your state because mom's got glaucoma.

See the difference versus just voting republican down the ticket because that is who is most compatible with personal views?

I'll leave it with this, and if I offend anyone, so be it. Anyone who would want the same party affiliation from top, national, to bottom, local is asking for a disaster.

PS. Everyone may now pile on again. :) lol
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 5:15:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 4:43:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/22/2012 6:18:27 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This post offends me for some reason...

Good I'm glad you are offended.....well.....maybe not.....why you offended?

That is a rhetorical question. Hear me out here. First and foremost I'm not telling folks who to vote for. What I am saying is that the process that each and everyone of us has been taught to choose our candidates by selecting the one that best matches how we stand on the issues is wrong.

What I am advocating is to step out of that paradigm and instead take a holistic view of local, state, and national politics and vote the consequences, which then opens a whole realm of possibilities. Why?

1. Typically in the current process of vote decision results in a person voting the same party across the board or very similar views. There is no perfect party or match in belief to a particular party. The more politicians there are of one party the good things get accentuated but also the bad/wrong beliefs get accentuated.

It could even be argued that if all public offices, local, state, & national were filled with the same party or very similar beliefs it could be disastrous. An extreme example may be if all public office was all libertarians. There literally could be armed insurrection if all the social programs at a state, local, & national level were dismantled.

2. This scheme only works if one is vested in all public elections. When you vote using this process you are just as engaged in the local school board election as the national elections. It reduces apathy.

3. It balances a diverse school of thought. Pick up any diversity magazine and you will get example after example of how diverse thought is much more effective at problem solving than a group who all thinks the same.

4. It allows you to "win" more. Nothing is more frustrating than wanting to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate when you live in TX or voting for the Republican candidate for President when living in NY. By using my scheme you will not always be voting for a long shot and when you win more often, it will keep you engaged.

5. Lastly, and very importantly, this opens up more viability with the 3rd parties. You don't have to feel like you are giving up a vote to avoid when voting for a 3rd party.

6. It virtually eliminates negative campaigning. I don't care about your taxes paid or other inconsequential bs. I just want to know what you advocate so I can see how to best balance it with all the other offices I also vote on.

Try this one one (over simplified, but illustration). Republican at national to support anti abortion legislation at a national level. Democratic at state level to ensure strong level of support for social system needed to handle all the new babies that would be born to mothers who are reluctant with having them. Then maybe Green party at local level to get more acceptance of medical marijuana in your state because mom's got glaucoma.

See the difference versus just voting republican down the ticket because that is who is most compatible with personal views?

I'll leave it with this, and if I offend anyone, so be it. Anyone who would want the same party affiliation from top, national, to bottom, local is asking for a disaster.

PS. Everyone may now pile on again. :) lol

Haha I was joking, I meant because the first post mentioned my name.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK