Great Moments in Voting History

We had a three way contest for mayor, so it brought out more voters. The guy/party who spent the most money got elected. There was a refreshment table just out side the voting room. Not sure who supplied it since I didn't partake.

My inner social liberal and my outer wealthy land owner got into a fight and kept me from going to the polls. My morals got bruised and I woke up with sore ethics.

Meanwhile the election results look like everyone took the Democratic party voting guide into the booth with them but ignored the school levy part. Seriously, every Democratic candidate and issue won except the school levies which failed.

Like I said, I am seriously conflicted on that stuff since school levies impact my business significantly, so I have a hard time voting for them. But Columbus has one of the worst school districts in the state and thus in the nation and they need something. More money might not help but it probably wouldn't hurt. I would hate to pay that bill though. Someone help me with a rich guy's conscience please.

Meanwhile, Upper Arlington is one of the best school districts in the state and is well funded and their levy passed. Reward past performance, I guess? We've been looking at houses in Upper Arlington and it's not unusual to see property taxes in the $9,000 - 12,000 per year range.

p.s. now I want pie you bastards. Make mine pecan, I have a big bowl of fresh pecans at home that you can use. You shell 'em though.

My cousin and I were talking about it. We both have similar, though not identical views, and we commented how we don't have a single person or party to vote for, and the way that we got here was having idiots vote idiots in.

Over a few beers, we came up with the idea that maybe we need to go back to only letting landowners vote. Sure would be interesting, even if it isn't a pinnacle of equality and fairness.

Note: That would exclude me from voting, and right now, it might exclude my cousin as well. So since I'd consider us both to be reasonably intelligent, that wouldn't work. Maybe we just need to have a 10 question quiz, that picks from 50 questions. If you can't get at least 7/10, your vote doesn't count. Questions would be of the sort: Who was the first President of the US? Who is the current VP? Who is the current Secretary of State? How many stars are on the flag? What is 3x3? How many years, and how many terms are allowed?

I bet that would eliminate a shocking amount of voters.

In reply to stuart in mn:

That might actually work in todays world.

In reply to mtn:

Good thing I own 5ac of land......

The way I think things are most likely to change is to get more moderate people involved in the major parties. The big decisions are not made on election day. The big decisions are made at the party caucuses.

We let the parties pick the candidates. They pick candidates that represent and serve the interests of the party, not the regular people. Most people involved in the two major parties are significantly more Liberal/Conservative than average. Most regular people fall just a hair to one side or other of the political center in this country.

So, the choices we get are a bunch of crappy extremists whose main priority is to tear down whatever the guy on the other side of the aisle is trying to accomplish.

If we want more reasonable, moderate candidates to choose from. We need to get more reasonable, moderate people deciding our choices.

In reply to mtn:

We can't even ask someone for I'd and you think you could get away with a quiz? I applaud you optimism. I would do away with elections and select representatives by a lottery like jury duty.

In reply to Wally:

That might work as well......along with single term limits, and referendums on their performance over the term.

In reply to yamaha:

That's the beauty of the plan, no one goes back for a second helping of jury duty. Poor performance would be rewarded with an entertaining public shaming.

Perfect

Wally wrote: ....I would do away with elections and select representatives by a lottery like jury duty.

The huge gain here is that it would effectively eliminate political parties, and (hopefully) almost entirely remove money from the equation.

Realistically though, not going to happen. It would have to be a Constitutional change. Guess who would have to do that? The same people who would be loosing the control / money.

I've always thought you should have to register for a Lottery system similar to Selective Service. You then have to take a basic Civics Exam proving basic High school level skills in Budgeting, Reasoning, History, and Science and law. Depending on your Grade you are entered into pools to become eligible to hold various public offices. The higher your grade the more selective job you are eligible for. Example 60% enables you to be local government/shool board
70% State representatives
80% Police/fire chief, House member
90% elected judicial, Senate, Governor
99% President

Terms are the same as current you are elected for 1 term by random lottery you serve 1 time in your life.

dculberson wrote: p.s. now I want pie you bastards. Make mine pecan, I have a big bowl of fresh pecans at home that you can use. You shell 'em though.

I see what happens when I give you pecans.....

I think the current system can be saved, with a the addition of academics and corporal punishment. Politician has to formally write up all their promises to the voters during election, if they fail without trying damn hard, ineligible for reelection and some sort of court-martial like system to determine and deliver punishment, on live TV.

Also, all laws must be written as a persuasive research paper, with lots of peer reviewed scholarly sources. That alone will eliminate about 90% of congress arguing over stupid E36 M3 that shouldn't even be a question like gun control, gay rights, abortion, tipping Guam over, CAFE, energy in general, etc, etc.

dculberson wrote: Like I said, I am seriously conflicted on that stuff since school levies impact my business significantly, so I have a hard time voting for them. But Columbus has one of the worst school districts in the state and thus in the nation and they need something. More money might not help but it probably wouldn't hurt. I would hate to pay that bill though. Someone help me with a rich guy's conscience please.

Let's see, less business for you, or a generation of poorly educated kids in your area, hmm...

Maybe your land would become more valuable if the school district it's in wasn't so E36 M3ty?

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

So you don't care if Guam sinks?

That man hates Guam!!!!!!!

Beer Baron wrote: The way I think things are most likely to change is to get more moderate people involved in the major parties. The big decisions are not made on election day. The big decisions are made at the party caucuses. We let the parties pick the candidates. They pick candidates that represent and serve the interests of the party, not the regular people. Most people involved in the two major parties are significantly more Liberal/Conservative than average. Most regular people fall just a hair to one side or other of the political center in this country. So, the choices we get are a bunch of crappy extremists whose main priority is to tear down whatever the guy on the other side of the aisle is trying to accomplish. If we want more reasonable, moderate candidates to choose from. We need to get more reasonable, moderate people deciding our choices.

One of the theories that have been suggested to fix this is to force all primaries to be open to all comers. Then the final election can be for the finalists.

That currently works well in areas that are prominetnly one party- say Detroit- where there were a bunch of people running for Mayor, all from one party, and the top 2 faced off yesterday.

The theory applies for the general seat by making the primary election more appealing to the wider voter. Instead of the loud extremes being the ones you hear druing the primary (the goal being MORE R or MORE D than the other guy, generally), you would get someone that probably is more mid-stream- which is more representative of the gereral public.

For instance, a person who is financially conservative and socially liberal woudl not be an outcast in both parties- which is how they are currently labled.

Man, voting is nice elsewhere. Here they have to fight to purge the voter rolls of the dead! Just recently, in another first, you have to prove you're sick in order to vote absentee. Being lazy doesn't cut it anymore. Nor can the democratic party pick up crates of absentee forms and hit the old folks homes, like they used to to get their side elected. Voter ID? Racist, despite the fact you can't get anything anywhere without ID anymore. They'll let you vote anywhere anytime but won't let you in A Federal Guberment building without ID.

We're doomed.

In reply to DoctorBlade:

Yep

Still think the best model is from Starship Troopers.

Earn your Citizenship (as pertains to voting rights at least)

Civil service, military service... something to actually contribute to the betterment of society.

alfadriver wrote: One of the theories that have been suggested to fix this is to force all primaries to be open to all comers. Then the final election can be for the finalists. That currently works well in areas that are prominetnly one party- say Detroit- where there were a bunch of people running for Mayor, all from one party, and the top 2 faced off yesterday. The theory applies for the general seat by making the primary election more appealing to the wider voter. Instead of the loud extremes being the ones you hear druing the primary (the goal being MORE R or MORE D than the other guy, generally), you would get someone that probably is more mid-stream- which is more representative of the gereral public. For instance, a person who is financially conservative and socially liberal woudl not be an outcast in both parties- which is how they are currently labled.

I generally like that idea. So does the system work by all candidates in a pool and the top two face off? Or each party holds a primary, and everyone gets to vote for which candidate from each party they like best? I can see advantages and disadvantages to both systems.

If it is just a giant pool, you could have 2D's and 4R's in the pool. There is smaller variations between the R's, so the 2D's snatch up a bigger portion of the vote. Similar to how a 3rd party candidate can throw an election by "stealing" votes from the party they are more similar to.

Voting in multiple primaries keeps a lot more power in the hands of the two parties and is less likely to upset the current system (for good or ill). If one party gets wildly out of touch with center, they still end up with a chance in the main election even if the people would be better served by picking between two members of the same party.

I like this second system. It is imperfect, but much better than what we have now. It is a minor change that shores up some of the major faults in the system without introducing any new ones.

In reply to Beer Baron:

The way it's currently done, run off leads to the top 2 for the final face off.

The other interesting side benefit- when you see party primaries where the voter can vote in either (but not both) primary. So when you have a non-selection on one side, that side's voters can (and do) vote in the other party's primary, choosing the worst candidate of them all. This does happen.

For the non R or D party, I think putting them all into one primary is a benefit to them, too- since the party funds would have to be spread out among the various candidates, which more evens the spending gap to the marginal parties.

I understand that California is trying this method for some of their national seats. If it works out, I hope we see it more across the counrty. Which would be awesome, since it would cut the knees off the primary season we have- have us all vote for the top 2 presidential candidates at the same time.

Apexcarver wrote: Still think the best model is from Starship Troopers. Earn your Citizenship (as pertains to voting rights at least) Civil service, military service... something to actually contribute to the betterment of society.

I believe the goal is that you must demonstrate a willingness to put the needs of society above your own.

Trouble is, what sorts of activities/occupations do that, and who decides so? Aside from military service, what about... teaching, fire department, medical care, being a pastor, sanitation worker, etc...? How deeply involved in those things do you have to be? Does being a nurse count, but a medical receptionist not? Too complicated. I think military service is actually a poor gate keeper because the first thing they do is brain wash you to hold the think and value the way they want. That is not a bad thing, but it is not a great way to base an entire society off of. One of the wisest things our founding fathers decided was that the Commander in Chief would be a civilian post.

Fact is, people are all selfish and short sighted. They hold different values and are convinced that what they value is best. All of these competing ideals need to be balanced against each other.

I believe the best government model we have currently is a representative parliament. Lots of parties each holding very specific ideals. Vote for the one whose philosophy most closely mirrors your own. Each party makes up a proportion of the parliament according to the percentage of votes they get. Almost impossible for a single party to hold a majority. To get things done, different parties have to cooperate and form alliances on different issues. If the majority decide to be more socially liberal, then socially liberal agendas will pass... but that does not guarantee that economically liberal agendas will because not every party that believes in gay marriage will also believe in universal health care (for example).

windsordeluxe wrote:

dculberson wrote: p.s. now I want pie you bastards. Make mine pecan, I have a big bowl of fresh pecans at home that you can use. You shell 'em though.

I see what happens when I give you pecans.....

There aren't many left, either... make sure you get me more. ;-)

GameboyRMH wrote: Let's see, less business for you, or a generation of poorly educated kids in your area, hmm... Maybe your land would become more valuable if the school district it's in wasn't so E36 M3ty?

Seriously, that's what you took from my post? Are you trying to convince me of something or is it "be E36 M3ty to someone on the internet day?"

I would clarify but I don't think you care since my position was pretty clearly stated and my internal conflict was made clear. You chose to ignore it.

Edit: Maybe I was in a crappy mood and misinterpreted what you said. If so, I'm sorry.