| Register
Monday, January 05, 2009
You must be registered...

You must be registered to post in the forums.

To register, please click the Register link in the upper right hand corner.

Democracynow.com Forums
Subject: Voter liability
Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author Messages
dale nUser is Offline

Posts:4

12/13/2007 1:24 PM  

    I'm new to this...vibrant....forum lol. I guess I'll just have to plant this seed and check back periodically.

     I very much agree that democracy needs to be implemented now.  My question for anyone interested is to what account should the voters of a democracy be held accountable to vote.  I think that if one does not participate in the process of government he/she should not receive the benefits of being governed.   I think its evident through events like the planeing of the world trade center towers that people will hold the ones who make decisions accountable, possible even more so than their representatives.  Should a democracy hold ones who do not make decisions accountable? I think that there is no indecision, there is only a decision not to decide.  Whatchya think ?  

Jason FUser is Offline

Posts:5

12/14/2007 7:45 AM  
There are a number of counties that already do compulsory voteing.

In a way someone who does not vote has already lost a benefit of their society.  That being their ability to direct the way in which they a governed.

A nonvote is actually a vote to let someone else decide what should be done.

If it is the will of the majority that the minority decide for them..... perhaps the will of the majority should be respected.   :-)


Interesting sort of side note.

The Mennonite, Amish , Jehovah's Witnesses and some other religions that do not believe in voting.

Jason FUser is Offline

Posts:5

12/14/2007 8:23 AM  

Mmmm a interesting site that gives the arguments against compulsory voting.

dale nUser is Offline

Posts:4

12/17/2007 2:54 PM  

Thats a great answer, I'll be thinking about that one.

dale nUser is Offline

Posts:4

12/17/2007 2:54 PM  

Thats a great answer, I'll be thinking about that one.

dale nUser is Offline

Posts:4

12/17/2007 2:55 PM  

Thats a great answer, I'll be thinking about that one.

dale nUser is Offline

Posts:4

02/08/2008 4:59 AM  

I believe that voting is essential and everyone should take part, however, I think it must be said that the government is taking that away. Today we are separated by the popular vote and the delegate vote. Those in power let us vote to appease us, but the delegates decide the winner. Personaly, I don't remember ever seeing a place on the ballot for the position of delegate, so who chooses who they are? For that matter, how do we hold them accountable when hey vote against the popular vote? I believe the ruling parties stole our ability to choose our leader long ago when they decided the masses didn't know what was good for us.

The current administration has stolen 2 elections, put an inarticulate, greedy antagonist in the executive office and is totally dismantling and dismissing the Constitution as nothing more than a guideline. Seeking to dismantle every remaining right we have in order to "protect us" and install us as the most incidious imperial power of the current day. They systematically toss votes they disagree with as so much daily rubble and inform us, by means of the corporate media, whatever they believe will make us agree to a policy.

Our voting apparatus is far removed from what Thomas Jefferson fully intended and we find ourselves in peril from the actions of our government. If our leaders posessed the true "American Spirit ", the world would love us as they did long ago and current flourishing dissidence  wouldn't have such a powerful foothold throughout the world.

One final thought to ponder is this: Beware the blurring of the lines between church and state. When power is derived from religious beliefs, there is no voting at all and suddenly anyone saying they have"god's ear" will determine who rules and what rights are given.

Thank you for your time.

Jason FUser is Offline

Posts:5

02/11/2008 9:31 PM  

I believe that voting is essential and everyone should take part, however, I think it must be said that the government is taking that away. Today we are separated by the popular vote and the delegate vote. Those in power let us vote to appease us, but the delegates decide the winner. Personaly, I don't remember ever seeing a place on the ballot for the position of delegate, so who chooses who they are? For that matter, how do we hold them accountable when hey vote against the popular vote? I believe the ruling parties stole our ability to choose our leader long ago when they decided the masses didn't know what was good for us. Our voting apparatus is far removed from what Thomas Jefferson fully intended and we find ourselves in peril from the actions of our government. If our leaders posessed the true "American Spirit ", the world would love us as they did long ago and current flourishing dissidence wouldn't have such a powerful foothold throughout the world. ***********************************************************

 

Originally we were many nations (states) banded together under a loose and weak federal government whose hands were shackled by the constitution. (see the 10th amendment) Part of the intent of the Electoral system was to distribute the election of the president more equally between states rather than give the smaller minority states almost no voice. So sometimes the states with fewer people can turn the presidential election away from the popular vote. Since the beginning there has been a shift from the Rights of the States and the People to that of the Federal government. Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. The states, through the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice president. Electoral College Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states, in part: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." This established our Electoral College. Although the Constitution does not require the states to adhere to any specific manner in electing these electors or how they cast their votes, it suggests, by its wording, that prominent individuals from each congressional district, and from the state at large, would be elected or appointed as electors that represent that district. Under this arrangement, a voter would vote for three individuals, one to represent his district and two "at large" representatives to represent his state. These electors, in turn, would then carefully and deliberately select the candidate for president. Under this system each congressional district could, in essence, select a different candidate. The candidate with the most electors nationwide would become the next president. This was the general procedure used until the 1830's, at which time all the states, except for South Carolina, changed to a "general ticket." The "general ticket" system is still in use today. Inherently, it causes corruption by the inequitable transfer of power from congressional districts to the states and large cities at the expense of rural communities. Here is a paper worth reading on the history of the electoral college.

 http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

You are not authorized to post a reply.



ActiveForums 3.7
Copyright by democracynow.com   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use