Problems With Liberal Democracy

[dlaloum]

Everybody's favorite Tucker , gives his take on 'Democracy'...........

TUCKER CARLSON: Democracy is not on the ballot, Joe Biden

Fox News host Tucker Carlson calls out Democrats for claiming that democracy is at stake if the Republican Party rises to power after the midterm elections.

www.foxnews.com

Tucker... who on oath by by Fox was sworn to be a program and character who "no reasonable person would take seriously" - according to his, and his bosses own testimony in court, that program is "entertainment only".

 

[jinjuku]

Personally I far prefer Australia's compulsory voting system - with an independent electoral body, that runs elections and polling booths...

Australia has 25 million people. Also I fail how to see that it's an argument against having an ID to vote I don't think it's that big of an ask.

Again people of color are not some podunks that can't get an ID. That's a liberal argument and it's about as racist as it gets.

 

[dlaloum]

Australia has 25 million people. Also I fail how to see that it's an argument against having an ID to vote I don't think it's that big of an ask.

Again people of color are not some podunks that can't get an ID. That's a liberal argument and it's about as racist as it gets.

The effort / cost needed is proportional to the population - it is no harder or more expensive per head of population for 1M people than for 100M people - in fact, it becomes more economical per voter, as the same central coordination is required and the costs are spread wider.

And for ID requirements - multiple analyses of results and voter fraud, have found that it is bureaucratic overhead for its own sake - no substantive fraud has been found - very basic precautions and electoral roll management methods as used in Australia, quickly identify and halt that sort of thing, without needing the overheads and negatives with an ID based system. - Which does not mean the individual is not identified - the electoral roll is clear and complete - all those entitled to vote are on the roll.... the very universality and compulsory nature of voting, reduces the need (and eliminates any benefits acruing) for ID.

 

[jinjuku]

The effort / cost needed is proportional to the population - it is no harder or more expensive per head of population for 1M people than for 100M people - in fact, it becomes more economical per voter, as the same central coordination is required and the costs are spread wider.

larger systems tend to be more complex so we're gonna have to agree to disagree

And for ID requirements - multiple analyses of results and voter fraud, have found that it is bureaucratic overhead for its own sake - no substantive fraud has been found - very basic precautions and electoral roll management methods as used in Australia, quickly identify and halt that sort of thing, without needing the overheads and negatives with an ID based system. - Which does not mean the individual is not identified - the electoral roll is clear and complete - all those entitled to vote are on the roll.... the very universality and compulsory nature of voting, reduces the need (and eliminates any benefits acruing) for ID.

I totally agree that we don't have a massive voter fraud problem I also don't agree that voter ID is somehow over strenuous.

"“If [voter fraud] is not a problem at all, how do you account for the fact that the Commission on Federal Election Reform ... recommended a voter ID requirement, and many other countries around the world have voter ID requirements?” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said during a 2005 argument in a Supreme Court case that upheld an Indiana photo ID requirement. "

 

[dlaloum]

larger systems tend to be more complex so we're gonna have to agree to disagree



I totally agree that we don't have a massive voter fraud problem I also don't agree that voter ID is somehow over strenuous.

"“If [voter fraud] is not a problem at all, how do you account for the fact that the Commission on Federal Election Reform ... recommended a voter ID requirement, and many other countries around the world have voter ID requirements?” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said during a 2005 argument in a Supreme Court case that upheld an Indiana photo ID requirement. "

One of the primary mechanisms against voter fraud, is compulsory voting.
If every voter is required to vote - there is no scope for additional fraudulent votes.
Any fraudulent vote sticks out immediately - as it doubles up with a legitimate vote, which is then investigated.

You can only have fraudulent votes in a system based on many voters, not voting at all - once that is the system, there is the opportunity to "activate" the latent votes fraudulently.

Compulsory universal voting, is democratically superior, on principle, and eliminates 99% of fraud opportunities, making mechanisms such as ID, redundant.

Where the voting is NOT compulsory and universal - then mechanisms such as ID become necessary... along with their entire, expensive, and painful, bureaucracy.

I always find it remarkable that the very same people who are proponents of small government, elimination of regulation, etc... are frequently the leaders in the charge for voter ID - ie: more regulation and bureaucratic red tape!!!

You want to simplify and make the system more reliable - make it compulsory and universal - less scope for gaming the system, greater ability to identify any attempt to game the system, and reduced bureaucracy/regulation. win-win-win.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Personally I far prefer Australia's compulsory voting system

I'm a bit concerned by that word.

 

[Dude#1279435]

One of the primary mechanisms against voter fraud, is compulsory voting.
If every voter is required to vote - there is no scope for additional fraudulent votes.
Any fraudulent vote sticks out immediately - as it doubles up with a legitimate vote, which is then investigated.

You can only have fraudulent votes in a system based on many voters, not voting at all - once that is the system, there is the opportunity to "activate" the latent votes fraudulently.

Compulsory universal voting, is democratically superior, on principle, and eliminates 99% of fraud opportunities, making mechanisms such as ID, redundant.

Where the voting is NOT compulsory and universal - then mechanisms such as ID become necessary... along with their entire, expensive, and painful, bureaucracy.

I always find it remarkable that the very same people who are proponents of small government, elimination of regulation, etc... are frequently the leaders in the charge for voter ID - ie: more regulation and bureaucratic red tape!!!

You want to simplify and make the system more reliable - make it compulsory and universal - less scope for gaming the system, greater ability to identify any attempt to game the system, and reduced bureaucracy/regulation. win-win-win.

But you'd be forcing people to vote. Unless the vote is a no-vote. Saying, I didn't like the poop you offered. Also, what percentage of fraudulent votes does America have?

 

[Dude#1279435]

Tucker... who on oath by by Fox was sworn to be a program and character who "no reasonable person would take seriously" - according to his, and his bosses own testimony in court, that program is "entertainment only".

Tucker is the biggest propagandist in America, along with Alex Jones. Therefore even if he's telling the truth for once, it doesn't matter to me. I'd never read it.

 

[dlaloum]

But you'd be forcing people to vote. Unless the vote is a no-vote. Saying, I didn't like the poop you offered. Also, what percentage of fraudulent votes does America have?

In the compulsory system, they are required to turn up.... or pay a small fine.

They can choose to turn up (get ticked off as presenting), and not vote.
Or they can choose to send in a postal vote - and make that an invalid vote... ie: a non vote

 

[dlaloum]

I'm a bit concerned by that word.

Yes - USA'nians get freaked out by that - yet they have a plethora of compulsory requirements, as do we all in any country around the world.

Over here, we make it a celebration of democracy.... most polling booths have a BBQ out the front serving "democracy sausages", (and beverages), used to raise funds for local community organisations.

 

[Dude#1279435]

I'll criticize the Dems for once. They're completely out of touch with Americans on the economy, and they should easily get swept in a few days.

Another poop show is the Republicans, and the key to the whole thing. I can't recall the last time they've even mentioned the word capitalism. It's your core principle basically and the most important issue. Do we just all know Republicans are capitalists and see no further need in mentioning it? But that they don't communicate anything about it, or it's importance, baffles me and leads me to believe what Jason Lewis once said: Democrats believe in socialism more than Republicans believe in capitalism.

 

[dlaloum]

I'll criticize the Dems for once. They're completely out of touch with Americans on the economy, and they should easily get swept in a few days.

Another poop show is the Republicans, and the key to the whole thing. I can't recall the last time they've even mentioned the word capitalism. It's your core principle basically and the most important issue. Do we just all know Republicans are capitalists and see no further need in mentioning it? But that they don't communicate anything about it, or it's importance, baffles me and leads me to believe what Jason Lewis once said: Democrats believe in socialism more than Republicans believe in capitalism.

Except when it really comes down to it, Republicans do NOT support capitalism - what they support is cronyism... are subsidies removed, and is the market left truly free - with monopolies/oligopolies penalised are banned? No.

Is the logical capitalist process of letting energy sources compete based on whichever is most efficient and economical - no - because they are all wrapped up in anti-renewables identity politics.

Republicans have for decades supported nepotism and cronyism - wherever interest were willing to spend $ to support the politician, the supported would receive handouts, government projects and subsidies - that is not capitalism.

The reason they seldom if ever talk about the principles of capitalism and the free market, is that opening that can of worms, would show them to be hypocritical and self serving.... and definitely NOT supporters of a true capitalist free market. - Instead they prefer to hide behind the fig leaf of libertarianism, reduced red tape and regulation, while at the same time shovelling government largess to their sponsors.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Except when it really comes down to it, Republicans do NOT support capitalism - what they support is cronyism... are subsidies removed, and is the market left truly free - with monopolies/oligopolies penalised are banned? No.

Is the logical capitalist process of letting energy sources compete based on whichever is most efficient and economical - no - because they are all wrapped up in anti-renewables identity politics.

Republicans have for decades supported nepotism and cronyism - wherever interest were willing to spend $ to support the politician, the supported would receive handouts, government projects and subsidies - that is not capitalism.

The reason they seldom if ever talk about the principles of capitalism and the free market, is that opening that can of worms, would show them to be hypocritical and self serving.... and definitely NOT supporters of a true capitalist free market. - Instead they prefer to hide behind the fig leaf of libertarianism, reduced red tape and regulation, while at the same time shovelling government largess to their sponsors.

At this point for me it isn't even about free markets or the unrealistic laissez fare capitalism. Not the Randian perfectly free market but just more messaging of capitalism.

I'd vote for them on the economy, but honestly a vote for the RNP is like flicking a coin in the fountain.

 

[Trell]

you do realize if you spin the clock back to 1777 that voting has become so unrestricted that it's amazingly accommodating.

So 1777 is the baseline year you use for discussing and comparing voting rights today? Good grief.

 

[GO-NAD!]

OK what's that look like to you? Can you find me any code or law on the books that represent a straight up systemic restriction against protected classes of people?

By the way I believe in some form of redressement and I think it needs to be investment in communities that have been typically underserved I don't think it should be individual checks just needs to be money that goes in infrastructure where people normally just haven't had that.

As an example, I am not a fan of private primary or secondary education. If every parent - from richest to poorest - had to send their kids to public schools, they would all have an interest in ensuring that it is well-funded. And, the enforced mixing of all economic and social classes of kids might - hopefully - instill some empathy in the silver spoon crowd.

And, taxation policies most definitely favour the wealthy (this applies in Canada too). Tax deductible benefits that are only accessible by the more affluent, lower rates for capital gains, corporate welfare, etc.

Ever since humanity transitioned from hunter/gathers to hierarchical societies, the default condition has been steadily increasing concentration of wealth (and power) in the hands of the few. The only mitigation has been intermittent major catastrophes such as plagues, major wars, famines, etc. As these events subside, concentration of wealth picks up steam again.

If we actually put Enlightenment principles into practice, instead of pretending to, it wouldn't take catastrophic events to make societies less unequal.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Australia has 25 million people. Also I fail how to see that it's an argument against having an ID to vote I don't think it's that big of an ask.

Again people of color are not some podunks that can't get an ID. That's a liberal argument and it's about as racist as it gets.

This is gaslighting.

Is it only POC who can't get an ID? If they aren't "podunks" who could get ID if they wanted to, why don't they?

 

[Bruce53]

IF the Republicans do gain the majority in both chambers, then they MUST do something to fix the energy crisis and the resultant economic crisis. I'm all in for them winning, but will be horribly disappointed if they can't come up with formula to fix these problems. The only think that may stand in their way, again assuming that they can come up with a workable plan, is the presidential veto to block progress.

 

[jinjuku]

So 1777 is the baseline year you use for discussing and comparing voting rights today? Good grief.

It's the realization that as times change things improve.

 

[jinjuku]

This is gaslighting.

Is it only POC who can't get an ID? If they aren't "podunks" who could get ID if they wanted to, why don't they?

It IS gaslighting but it's not me gaslighting.

 

[jinjuku]

Can you get on an airplane, rent a car, buy a gun without ID?