Reforms YOU want Addressed and Solved

I believe that anyone who is interested should work with me and others to solve problems that they have with society that they have the ability to solve, by primarily writing to legislators but through other purely voluntary (nonviolent) means as well. I'd like to start some kind of an organization that wants to help people live happier lives, with others who would voluntarily assist me in perhaps making our issues more widely known to the mainstream. I hesitate to declare myself the leader of the organization, but rather its founder.

Before we debate what the organization should be called or silly inconsequential things like that, we should begin by addressing problems we have with society that others are not addressing or trying to solve. There is one problem I have that particularly comes to mind--

Polling. My problem is with public opinion polls of any type, however, my problem is chiefly with polling that is undergone for the presidential race. It is something that changes public opinion, through pure intimidation, and that is wrong. How many Americans choose to vote for a candidate based on how many others are voting for the same candidate, based on who they think can win? Shouldn't they vote on how accurately the candidate represents them instead? I am in no way advocating tests or rules that would limit voting in any way, I think that voting should be universal in the United States (which it is not. Look at me--I can't vote, yet I'm a citizen).

Let me provide an example. When I was in Elementary School I can remember one instance when my class was voting on something, I don't remember what for. But I do remember that the teacher made us put our heads down on our desks, to cover our eyes, and that to vote we had to raise our hands. As a result, the vote was not intimidated by a majority. It's too bad I don't remember what the vote was on...

But how many people can remember instances when voting was taking place when they saw people looking back and forth to see how many people, or who, supported what side, and how many of them voted in accordance with what they saw as opposed to what they thought? How many people do this themselves? I know I do, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. Polls have the same effect. People are voting for John Kerry and John Edwards, not for Kucinich or Sharpton or Nader, because everyone else is. It's a cycle that cannot end unless voting is ended along with it. This is a problem I want to solve.

Next?

to solve problems that they have with society that they have the ability to solve,

Dangerous statements like these scare me, the same was said for Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler. What one may find as a "problem" is not necessarily a problem at all. What is a problem? Which problem is there to tackle, who should have to pay?

I'd like to start some kind of an organization that wants to help people live happier lives,

If you want to make everyone happy, you have to make some ppl less "happy". *replace happy with $*

How many Americans choose to vote for a candidate based on how many others are voting for the same candidate, based on who they think can win?

If you believe in democracy this is of no concern, I don't believe in democracy for these reasons. But in a democracy someone has the right to vote for which ever reason that person wants to. You are not being "democratic" if you are imposing your mores on the electoral system.

Shouldn't they vote on how accurately the candidate represents them instead?

Ideally yes, but not everyone has time to care. Ppl vote for candidates who they feel they like, and we don't have the right to tell them differently.

I am in no way advocating tests or rules that would limit voting in any way

I think you are...

I think that voting should be universal in the United States (which it is not. Look at me--I can't vote, yet I'm a citizen).


Limitations have to be set; I think you should really watch the words you use. Universalism is when all ppl can vote, thustly a newborn baby can vote. I think you can agree with me that a newborn voting is a farce of democracy. Voting has always been tied to taxation, the US reason d'etre was the "taxation without representation" idea. You don't work or pay income tax (I assume). Thus you don't contribute to society, and shouldn't have a right to vote.

Polling

Is totally appropriate, and I think your analogies are incorrect. Bush's approval ratings were VERY high according to polls, but they have gone way down below 50% according to polls. Look at Kerry he was at single digits in Iowa, and he ended up winning. I think you put way too much onus on the poll, most ppl don't care about polls. Only politicos really do...

polling is clearly a first amendment issue in the US, and could not be done away with without a misguided constitutional amendment. That said, there are certainly problems that go along with it. Although I think the reason people aren't voting for Kucinich or Sharpton is partly to do with the fact that the media has treated them both as jokes from the very start and partly do with their actual characters, kucinich not being very photogenic and coming off as kind of strange, and sharpton's rather problematic history, the fact that polls say they don't have a chance is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, why vote for someone who doesn't have a chance?
I'm not sure how, or even if, this is a problem that can be fixed.

Dangerous statements like these scare me, the same was said for Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler. What one may find as a "problem" is not necessarily a problem at all. What is a problem? Which problem is there to tackle, who should have to pay?

Click to expand...

In a Democratic Process, if you see a problem, and wish to solve it, you must take action to do so. By taking action I mean, first and foremost, sending letters to your congressmen (when I do, I use congress.org) and making the issue more widely known through any nonviolent means. If you're lucky, you may have a logical point that others can identify with, thus allowing the problem you have to be solved. If not, you keep trying, or modify your goals to compensate.

If you want to make everyone happy, you have to make some ppl less "happy". *replace happy with $*

Click to expand...

True.

If you believe in democracy this is of no concern, I don't believe in democracy for these reasons. But in a democracy someone has the right to vote for which ever reason that person wants to. You are not being "democratic" if you are imposing your mores on the electoral system.

Click to expand...

Okay, then let me ask this hypothetical--if a large man threatened to beat me up if I didn't vote for Bush, and I voted for Bush, should my vote count? I was intimidated. I would say, to that hypothetical: convict the large man and allow me to recast my vote. People do have the right to vote for whatever reason, but they should not be bullied by what the media says is the majority, by the media itself, into voting for a particular candidate. Some people are intimidated by public opinion polls. If polls that cannot adequately portray how the population is feeling (the only way to do so would be to ask everyone) on a given topic are therefore untrue, when they say that they do represent the population, then, shouldn't they be considered libel?

Good question, though.

Ideally yes, but not everyone has time to care. Ppl vote for candidates who they feel they like, and we don't have the right to tell them differently.

Click to expand...

I do see how that is wrong but I don't think that it's fair to exclude people who vote because of this, because it is not the same thing to vote for someone you like as being intimidated into voting for someone that you like. People should be able to vote for whatever reason, but not when they are doing so because they are being bullied by the media, which is, as jps points out, not always accurate.

I think you are...

Click to expand...

If anything, eschewing polls would increase voter turnout and give any fringe candidate the chance he or she needs to win against the big republican and democratic dogs. If you don't know who the nation is going to choose, then you can vote for a different reason, logical or illogical.

But I would never advocate testing in any form to determine voter eligibility. No taxes, no requirements at all. You're a citizen, you can vote.

Universalism is when all ppl can vote, thustly a newborn baby can vote.

Click to expand...

If the baby wanted to, it could. But it can't, so it won't. I don't think that it would want to. I don't think most children would want to, but that doesn't mean that we should speak for them, and deny them suffrage.
I don't see how a newborn baby's vote is somehow worse than someone voting for a candidate based on appearance or likeabilty, however.

You don't work or pay income tax (I assume).

Click to expand...

I pay sales tax, and when I do get a job this summer, a percentage will be deducted from my paycheck by the government. Everyone pays taxes, one way or another, and therefore, everyone should be able to vote. tanstaafl.

Bush's approval ratings were VERY high according to polls, but they have gone way down below 50% according to polls.

Click to expand...

Yes, and therefore, votes that may have gone to Bush will go to Kerry (or the democratic nominee) if this trend continues. If it goes the other way, Kerry will lose votes to Bush. People, moderates most notably, will be intimidated by public opinion polls to vote for a candidate that they may not really support.

Look at Kerry he was at single digits in Iowa, and he ended up winning.

Click to expand...

Only at the beginning. Right before the Iowa caucuses Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Gephardt were in a four way tie. This I think was actually a good thing, but a six-way tie including Sharpton and Kucinich would have been better because it would have totally invalidated the polls to begin with, and then people would vote without being intimidated by the percieved majority.

Although I think the reason people aren't voting for Kucinich or Sharpton is partly to do with the fact that the media has treated them both as jokes from the very start

Click to expand...

Yes, and they support this reasoning with their evidence--polling, and the cycle that comes from it. Low public opinion for you=low number of votes for you. You're right, the media doesn't take them seriously. The only good questions I've ever seen asked to Kucinich or Sharpton were on Real Time with Bill Maher. On the debates, they've had to step in and answer the questions asked to Edwards or Kerry. If Kucinich or Sharpton goes on CNN an airhead will ask him why he hasn't dropped out of the race and if he thinks that his chances of winning are null. It's so stupid. But if the media didn't know who was going to win the next caucus, they wouldn't be able to justifiably ask such stupid questions.

kucinich not being very photogenic and coming off as kind of strange

Click to expand...

Yeah, he's short and greasy. It's a problem. He should have had a supermodel puppet run in his place.

I'm not sure how, or even if, this is a problem that can be fixed.

Click to expand...

Write your representatives. If you think this problem can be fixed, outline how, and maybe they'll agree with you and introduce a bill.

In a Democratic Process, if you see a problem, and wish to solve it, you must take action to do so. By taking action I mean, first and foremost, sending letters to your congressmen (when I do, I use congress.org) and making the issue more widely known through any nonviolent means.

Which is true, but it is truly insignificant in the larger scheme of things. I mean let's consider special interests they are the ones who dictate much of the decisions made at the Capitol building. You can send your letter to your congressman all you want, but if you can't vote you are deemed irrelevant. That's just simple reality...

If you're lucky, you may have a logical point that others can identify with, thus allowing the problem you have to be solved. If not, you keep trying, or modify your goals to compensate.

Unless you have a real groundswell of support, nothing will change.

Okay, then let me ask this hypothetical--if a large man threatened to beat me up if I didn't vote for Bush, and I voted for Bush, should my vote count? I was intimidated. I would say, to that hypothetical: convict the large man and allow me to recast my vote. People do have the right to vote for whatever reason, but they should not be bullied by what the media says is the majority, by the media itself, into voting for a particular candidate. Some people are intimidated by public opinion polls.

VERY bad analogy, in the first instance the voter has no choice but to vote for that candidate. Last time I checked voters have brains, and I think they can decide for themselves who they want to vote for. The media is not a bully because the voter decides to believe it or not. I mean FOX news offers a real alternative to CNN for instance, so you have the ability to see the two sides of the coin. A big man with a gun telling you to vote for this or that person is totally and completely different. It's illogical at best to compare the two. The whole purpose of a democracy is for the voter to decide (under their own terms) who they want in the presidency.

If polls that cannot adequately portray how the population is feeling (the only way to do so would be to ask everyone) on a given topic are therefore untrue, when they say that they do represent the population, then, shouldn't they be considered libel?

The actual election itself is not indicative of the nation either, shouldn't it be libel as well? I mean in 2000 I believe 48-50% of the population actually voted, thus it is not representative of the United States either. The election is really just one big poll. I mean the 2000 election showed how much of a farce American democracy really is, where ppl's votes are actually ignored.


I do see how that is wrong but I don't think that it's fair to exclude people who vote because of this, because it is not the same thing to vote for someone you like as being intimidated into voting for someone that you like.

I think ppl should have a minor test before they can register to vote (non-partisan questions) so we know that they know the issue and can make a informed decisions. But that is not really democracy in its modern sense, we have universal education thus it is naturally assumed that ppl know the issues.

People should be able to vote for whatever reason, but not when they are doing so because they are being bullied by the media, which is, as jps points out, not always accurate.

This quote is contradictory.

If anything, eschewing polls would increase voter turnout and give any fringe candidate the chance he or she needs to win against the big republican and democratic dogs.

WHOA! calm down here Pollux, this is where I get scared. The reason why you want these "reforms" is not to better the actual election, or electorate. It is to get your way, and that is a big difference.

If you don't know who the nation is going to choose, then you can vote for a different reason, logical or illogical.

You are switching back on forth on me Pollux, please make ur statements coherent.

But I would never advocate testing in any form to determine voter eligibility. No taxes, no requirements at all. You're a citizen, you can vote.

That doesn't make much sense, if you don't contribute to society then how is it that you have a right to decide it's future?

If the baby wanted to, it could. But it can't

:bugeye:

so it won't. I don't think that it would want to. I don't think most children would want to, but that doesn't mean that we should speak for them, and deny them suffrage.
I don't see how a newborn baby's vote is somehow worse than someone voting for a candidate based on appearance or likeabilty, however.

You can't? :bugeye:


I pay sales tax,

As do Canadians when they get go to Florida in the winter time. That doesn't mean they can vote.

and when I do get a job this summer, a percentage will be deducted from my paycheck by the government. Everyone pays taxes, one way or another, and therefore, everyone should be able to vote. tanstaafl.

Everyone pays sales taxes that right, and that's why sales taxes aren't a guide to voting.


People, moderates most notably, will be intimidated by public opinion polls to vote for a candidate that they may not really support.

Well Pollux the onus is on u now to actually prove ur thesis.

Pollux V said:

Yes, and they support this reasoning with their evidence--polling, and the cycle that comes from it. Low public opinion for you=low number of votes for you. You're right, the media doesn't take them seriously. The only good questions I've ever seen asked to Kucinich or Sharpton were on Real Time with Bill Maher. On the debates, they've had to step in and answer the questions asked to Edwards or Kerry. If Kucinich or Sharpton goes on CNN an airhead will ask him why he hasn't dropped out of the race and if he thinks that his chances of winning are null. It's so stupid. But if the media didn't know who was going to win the next caucus, they wouldn't be able to justifiably ask such stupid questions.

Click to expand...

The polls certainly contribute, but I think they've really been subject to more of this treatment than they deserve, some of the other candidates have at one point or another during the campaign, also been in single digits, and at times beneath kucinich and sharpton, but in my opinion only the two of them, along with mosley braun, were treated with the same tone.

Pollux V said:

Yeah, he's short and greasy. It's a problem. He should have had a supermodel puppet run in his place.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, appearances really do have an effect, and with him it goes beyond that, I know someone who went to one of his campaign events, and they said he just doesn't work a crowd well and had an unnerving tendency to answer a question while staring at a random person who rather than the person who asked it.

Pollux V said:

Write your representatives. If you think this problem can be fixed, outline how, and maybe they'll agree with you and introduce a bill.

Click to expand...

Thats the thing, I don't see how it can be fixed.

Which is true, but it is truly insignificant in the larger scheme of things. I mean let's consider special interests they are the ones who dictate much of the decisions made at the Capitol building. You can send your letter to your congressman all you want, but if you can't vote you are deemed irrelevant. That's just simple reality...

Click to expand...

No, it's true. It can be done. If corporate special interests had their way we'd all be slaves in concentration camps eating sawdust and drinking urine for nourishment while the top 1% wipe their asses with thousand dollar bills. Therefore, something must be counteracting special interests.

Unless you have a real groundswell of support, nothing will change.

Click to expand...

Then you agree.

in the first instance the voter has no choice but to vote for that candidate.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, in the analogy, the voter can vote for someone else and get beaten up. The voter still has a "choice," like today.

Last time I checked voters have brains, and I think they can decide for themselves who they want to vote for.

Click to expand...

Yes, if I'm going to be beaten up (or intimidated), I can decide whether I want to give in our perservere. Some do the former, others do the latter.

I mean FOX news offers a real alternative to CNN

Click to expand...

You're joking. TV and Major Newspaper Media is all the same. It isn't based on truth, it's based on profit. They all say the same thing because to do so guarantees them profits. Fox omits a little more than CNN, but I guess that particular audience likes their facts watered down and pissed on a little more than the one that watches CNN.

So far, CSPAN has really impressed me, because it tries to take the media middleman out so that you just get what's going on without omission or interpretation, but as a result it can get boring. Real Time with Bill Maher is awesome. Crossfire on CNN is cool, too, but they need to have a full hour timeslot.

A big man with a gun telling you to vote for this or that person is totally and completely different.

Click to expand...

I never said that he had a gun, nor did I say that he would kill you. All he does is intimidate, like public opinion polls.

The actual election itself is not indicative of the nation either, shouldn't it be libel as well?

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Over 200,000,000 people can choose to vote in an election. A thousand people are chosen to vote in a poll.

I think ppl should have a minor test before they can register to vote (non-partisan questions) so we know that they know the issue and can make a informed decisions.

Click to expand...

Not possible in my opinion, unless you've drafted a version of the test?

The reason why you want these "reforms" is not to better the actual election, or electorate. It is to get your way, and that is a big difference.

Click to expand...

No no no, people generally make laws or want to make laws that affect others, not themselves. If I could vote, I wouldn't base my vote on what the media told me. If the vote were today I'd vote Kucinich. If polls were outlawed, I wouldn't be affected, but many others would. The same goes for homosexual marriage--only heterosexuals seem to want to get in the way of such a thing, when it clearly does not affect them at all.

That doesn't make much sense, if you don't contribute to society then how is it that you have a right to decide it's future?

Click to expand...

Sorry you didn't ask, but tanstaafl is an acronym for there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Even if you don't pay taxes, you'll pay them one way or another. Everyone who lives in America pays taxes (or "contributes to society") one way or another, whether they like it or not, whether on purpose or not.

If the baby wanted to, it could. But it can't

Click to expand...

Sorry, let me add: It's a baby.

As do Canadians when they get go to Florida in the winter time. That doesn't mean they can vote.

Click to expand...

Yes but Canadian Citizens aren't citizens of the United States. I am a citizen of the United States.

Everyone pays sales taxes that right, and that's why sales taxes aren't a guide to voting.

Click to expand...

But you said I don't pay taxes! Concession!

Thats the thing, I don't see how it can be fixed.

Click to expand...

We could start by lobbying to outlaw them, couldn't we?

Pollux V said:

We could start by lobbying to outlaw them, couldn't we?

Click to expand...

I dont' see how this could be done without repealing the first amendment, which I think would do substantially more harm than good.

Undecided said:

to solve problems that they have with society that they have the ability to solve,
You don't work or pay income tax (I assume). Thus you don't contribute to society, and shouldn't have a right to vote.

Click to expand...

What an awful and distinctly republican thing to say. Believe it or not there's more to voting than tax issues, and whatever Pollux V would be voting on effects him as well as any American. He's governed by the initiatives that he helps pass, and he has to live with the leaders he helps to elect. The unemployed most certainly have a right to vote, there's a bit more about government then income taxation.