Protestantism

» Migisi - Compulsory voting - Red

In response to Compulsory voting posted by Migisi:

.
Heard on CNN this morning that voter turnout for the primaries going on now is 27% of those eligible (18/older registered.) Primaries don't attract a lot of voters. Kinda disturbing that so few decide which ~one~ candidate will be endorsed by each party. I suppose it's a way to narrow the field, but I'd like to see every candidate appear on the ballot in the general election.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Compulsory voting - Red

In response to Compulsory voting - Red posted by Migisi:
.
Not sure what you mean.
.
Every candidate as in the ones we are voting for in the primaries?
.
So, the winner of a national election might win with only 20% or less of the total vote?
.
Or do you mean there would be an elimination process until someone got a majority of the vote?
.
I think compulsory voting would defeat our process. Voting is not a privilege, it is a right. And, not voting is a choice as much as is voting.
.
Maybe we should be able to vote, "None of the above"?
.
But, that is what the name, Huckabee, means in a certain German dialect, none of the above.
.

.
We have to remember that our democracy is an experiment. It probably is not the natural choice of human beings to live in a democracy. We must be vigilant.
.
I'm sure many of us would like a benevolent dictator.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Moral High Ground #2

In response to Moral High Ground #2 posted by BrianTubbs:

.
There is no direct, historical evidence to support the claims made by those who assert a wide or broad Native American influence over our Founding Fathers.
.
I, and article authors, have offered reasons for that.
I presented the info I found, which I think is sound and has validity. Folks can decide for themselves.
.
... AS a Baptist pastor, it is NOT my principal task or role or desire to spend my time and energy criticizing or condemning other religions.
.
Not your 'principal' task, role, or desire. But it's somewhere on your list, right? ( jab in the rib)

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Compulsory voting - Red

In response to Compulsory voting - Red posted by pink101:
.
Actually, we should be chatting about election stuff in the 'presidential vote' thread. But I'll answer here.
.
Every candidate as in the ones we are voting for in the primaries? ?
.
Let's just say my candidate is Huckabee, and he doesn't get enough votes in this primary. I am forced - by only 27% of eligible voters - to vote in the general election for a candidate THEY chose. Let's say Billary is chosen for the Dem ticket, and McPain for the Repubs. I vehemently oppose both, and can't bring myself to vote for either. So I stay home and don't vote. I think voter turnout would be way higher - and more representative of our voters - if we did away with primaries altogether, and every candidate appeared on the general election ballot.
.
So, the winner of a national election might win with only 20% or less of the total vote?
.
In the 2004 general election, what percentage of the popular vote did Bush win by? In Ohio, a measely 2.5%; a scant 4.9% in Florida; and 6.5% in Pennsylvania. Not even close to 20% in any state, or for the nation as a whole. Yet he's President.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» badactor - Compulsory voting - Red

In response to Compulsory voting - Red posted by Migisi:
I agree. Whats the matter with a WAY shorter election process... where there would be a run off for the top vote getters, and end up with the elected (annointed ) ones getting at least half the votes? That idea would probably cause apoplexy in those that view our constitution as sacrosanct. But the framers left us with the option for change; the ammendment proccess might have demonstrated their deepest wisdom.

-- posted by badactor

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» redback - Compulsory voting

How's that work? Are their wages/salaries based on votes received? Or, funding for their projects based on it?

"Registered political parties...independent candidates...are entitled to election funding where their endorsed candidate or Senate groups receive at least 4% of the formal first preference votes."

"Payments are calculated using an indexed sum per first preference vote. At the 2007 federal election, each first preference vote was worth 210.027 cents."

As a result, nearly $AUD 45 million was paid out. The Labor Party (and new government) is the wealthiest Party but receive the same formula payout...nearly $21 mill to them, $17 mill to the losing Liberal (Howard's) Party. Their actual costs probably exceeded this. In the case of the independents, they can get back more than they spend so can be worthwhile to stand for office solely on that score?

Contrast: People vote here without the political party having to expend energy and bribes simply getting them to the polling booth. Of course there's negatives but I believe the voting public is mature enough to vote properly as their right...and for the Party they want...despite voting being legally compulsory. I'm sure the legality fades into the background for many, hopefully most.

(There are "donkey votes" (how the names are listed on a very lengthy ballot may mean the lazy voter selects the top names or above the line) ...and there's 'wasted' votes if you can't vote for the candidate you want or there is no hope of their success)
This system of public re-imbursement towards the election costs plus audit of election donations aims to contain the costs and increase accountability. There seems something unrestrained and obscene about the billions spent in a Presidential campaign that hopefully will not be repeated here when we (inevitably?) go 'Republic'.

64 percent of the voting-age citizen population, and 89 percent of the registered population."

My brain just imploded trying to find comparable data. I understood we have a higher percentage than you of those eligible to vote...who have registered thus vote. But I can't track it down today.

-- posted by redback

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Compulsory voting - Actor

In response to Compulsory voting - Red posted by badactor:
.
That idea would probably cause apoplexy in those that view our constitution as sacrosanct.
.
And cause fits in those who are so entrenched in and dependent on the present system to get elected. The more complicated the system, the more opportunity for shennanigans and corruption, IMO. I'm a firm believer in KISS.
.
But the framers left us with the option for change; the ammendment proccess might have demonstrated their deepest wisdom.
.
Very true. There's NOTHING etched in granite in the Constitution. That's evident - given Bush's Patriot Act which nullified the Bill of Rights (save the amendment about soldiers taking over your house).

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Campaign profiteering - Red

In response to Compulsory voting posted by redback:
.
Basically, you're talking about campaign cost reimbursement after the election - to winner ~and~ losers?
.
In the case of the independents, they can get back more than they spend so can be worthwhile to stand for office solely on that score?
.
Even if he loses, he wins! Who keeps the profit in OZ ... the candidate who ran and lost, or the party? Here, the ~individual~ candidate who loses, or even drops out, gets to keep unused campaign contributions.
.
Just FYI, quoting from:
Where Do The Campaign Contributions Go When Candidates Drop Out??? Seriously!
http://loanon.blogspot.com/2007/11/hopel...
"According to the Federal Election Commission, there is a law called the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. That law takes $3 from every willing income tax filer and puts it in a big fund. Once Chris Dodd raised $10 million evenly throughout 20 states, he then became eligible to have his funds matched by the federal government using taxpayer dollars. That's right- if you checked the $3 box to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, you were likely giving your money to every candidate with a good donation base, whether you would vote for them or not...
.
"----- FEC stipulates that Chris Dodd (or any other candidate) is allowed to retain his money for a future election once he decides to call it quits in any given election.
.
"----- FEC stipulates that a presidential candidate can donate his money to a non-profit organization of his choosing so long as it has 501 (c) tax status. That includes interest groups [Migisi: lobbyists and political action committees - PACs]. That candidate may donate to organizations ranging from the National Rifle Association to MoveOn.org. It doesn't matter a bit if you want your [tax contribution] money to go to that group or not.
.
"----- FEC stipulates that a presidential candidate can donate his funds to another campaign committee. So if you donated to an underdog candidate or pay federal income tax, there is a pretty healthy chance that you have bankrolled one of the top tier candidates, again whether you support that candidate or not." (end)
.
The candidate isn't supposed to use campaign profits for personal gain. Um, yeah, right.
.
The good 'Reverend' Sharpton is currently under FBI and IRS investigation that he - "improperly misstated the amount of money he raised during his 2004 White House run to illegally obtain federal matching funds"; and tax fraud - "commingled funds from his nonprofit National Action Network [religious org] with several of his for-profit ventures [six businesses]"; and misused campaign funds for "swanky hotels" and other ~personal~ luxuries. I'm sure he's not the only one misusing and abusing the system.
.
Campaign fraud:
The candidate ~him(her)self~ may be above reproach, but their backers and contributors may not be. Like Hong Kong businessman, Norman Hsu - a fugitive from the law (convicted of defrauding investors in California) - who has raised hundreds of thousands for the Dem party since 2003... which both Billary and Obama received. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/us/pol...

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» redback - Campaign profiteering - Red

In response to Campaign profiteering - Red posted by Migisi:

I think your system has weird elements too.

...if you checked the $3 box to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund...

So...if you don't check the box you don't pay? But enough people pay to fully finance the scheme? Then you can donate to a flawed or lost campaign?

In our situation...tis legal bribery? The candidate gets paid for our vote...provided they get 4% of the primary vote.

i wonder if this is predominantly a deist, secularist or Christian approach to getting the best person elected.

-- posted by redback

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Putting this back on topic...

As usual, these threads tend to drift off topic. Bringing this BACK on topic - which was the religious character of USA origins (or lack thereof) - here's an excerpt from a speech by Newt Gingrich to the John Locke Foundation.

You may not be a Gingrich fan, but the man is brilliant. And this speech clip is 100% absolute truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91ckW1Uh...

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds