Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

Who here votes in all applicable elections?

I have taken part in every election since the 1992 elections... I usually stay conservative on my votes, but sometimes a liberal sways my vote, if they speak about things that I feel strong enough about.

C-ditty
 
of course i vote independant a lot so i basically throw my vote away... stupid bi-partisan politics... but that gives me the right to complain.
 
2Thick said:


It might be past your bedtime, grandpa...LOl...just kidding.

Seriously, that is an accomplishment. Please do not tell me you also tend to vote conservative.
Click to expand...


I know, I know. :)

Yes, Conservative here. Hey, shoot me! ;)
 
I can't honestly say "all". But I do vote in most state and nat'l primaries, and in all national elections. I'm a moderate so I hate having to pick a party for primaries, but, God forgive me, I pick republican.
 
HumorMe said:



It should be but most people don't give a shit.
Click to expand...

That's very sad. It's not until democracy is taken away that people realise how important a right it is. People all over the world are dying fighting for that very right.
 
vinylgroover said:


That's very sad. It's not until democracy is taken away that people realise how important a right it is. People all over the world are dying fighting for that very right.
Click to expand...


You're right! One day I fear it will be taken away.

Americans in general are just a bunch of fat, lazy, could care less society. We have it too easy. I'm generalizing so don't anybody get their panties in a bunch. We have a shit load of expendable cash so it is easier to buy our way out of our own responsibilities.

I guess I am just old fashioned but I am still proud to be an American. Most of the younger people do not understand what it means to be an American or for that matter even proud.
 
Over here in the UK I think not voting is the only way to get change anymore. The only two parties that have any chance of getting voted in are basically the same......and they both have made stupid mistakes in the past. Our current government just loves adding layers of bureaucracy and specialises in knee-jerk reactons.......they do nothing until a bad story hits the headlines then they act, usually too late, and totally screw things up further. Whereas the Conservatives have a great record of sending the whole country down the swanny.

So in short, the only way to show that neither party is providing what the country wants is to not vote at all.......something that caused some concern at the last election.
 
I HAVE NVR VOTED. DONT REALLY MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE ANYWAY.


KAYNE
 
KAYNE said:
I HAVE NVR VOTED. DONT REALLY MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE ANYWAY.


KAYNE
Click to expand...

That is the wrong attitude. Your vote may mean less in a national election, but your vote does mean something in a regional one. That is where your voice should really be heard. The local politicians HAVE to listen to thos that make noise because theyare still small-time.
 
2Thick said:


That is the wrong attitude. Your vote may mean less in a national election, but your vote does mean something in a regional one. That is where your voice should really be heard. The local politicians HAVE to listen to thos that make noise because theyare still small-time.
Click to expand...

HAHA....99% OF THE LOCAL POLITICIANS IN THIS STATE ARE CROOKED SO I DONT EVEN BOTHER VOTING.

ANOTHER REASON I DONT VOTE IS B/C MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO RUN FOR THINGS AROUND HERE ARE BLACK. NOW I'M NOT "NOT VOTING" CUZ THEY ARE BLACK. I'M NOT VOTING CUZ THE BLACK CANDIDATES ONLY LOOK OUT FOR THE BLACK RACE AROUND HERE. WHY CANT THEY JUST DO WHATS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF ONE RACE???


KAYNE
 
I vote conservative.

Repubs, show love up in the club! :elephant:

Usually the conservative side handles shit a bit better. Liberals tend to throw money at problems.

And believe it or not, your vote does matter in the Pres. election, Kayne.
Of course, the electoral college votes, but if you recall, in the last election, the electoral college did not vote against any state's popular vote. Meaning every state that voted majority Bush had the electoral college vote the same and every state that voted majority Gore got electoral votes for him. Bush won more states and more electoral votes.
 
KAYNE said:


HAHA....99% OF THE LOCAL POLITICIANS IN THIS STATE ARE CROOKED SO I DONT EVEN BOTHER VOTING.

ANOTHER REASON I DONT VOTE IS B/C MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO RUN FOR THINGS AROUND HERE ARE BLACK. NOW I'M NOT "NOT VOTING" CUZ THEY ARE BLACK. I'M NOT VOTING CUZ THE BLACK CANDIDATES ONLY LOOK OUT FOR THE BLACK RACE AROUND HERE. WHY CANT THEY JUST DO WHATS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF ONE RACE???


KAYNE
Click to expand...

Call and write once a week and encourage everyone you know to do the same and you will soon have them listening. Trust me when I say that no one does that anymore, so they are forced to listen out of fear of not being elected again.
 
Never missed an opportunity since I was 22. I don't have any strict party affiliations. I'd vote for a democrat or republican. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are words that don't have a lot of meaning for me.
 
politicians should be paid less and have a limited stay in office. There are guys in congress that are basically career politicians. These people are more concerned with politics inside the beltway and getting re-elected than with the concerns of the people they're supposed to represent. i read some radicals proposal that those in congress should be paid 2 times the poverty level. Maybe then that would give these politicians some incentive to help all of its citizens, as opposed to the ones who finance their campaigns.
 
Nature Boy - they don't make the money from the office salary.. its from the power they have from the office and cashing in on that post office as a 'speical advisor'

I think all politicians should be ex-communicated from the government and corporate circles and not be allowed to do anything but farm or raise animals post election.. That will give them perspective... lol
 
good point crimson king, actually the guy I got that idea from said that the politicians in question shouldn't receive any money for speeches and all that other BS. Stick with helping americas citizens and not helping themselves.
 
knight69 said:
DIDNT see David Duke running this time, so didnt vote!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

LMAO..............I KNOW HIS DAUGHTER. SHE DATES A FRIEND OF MINE. SKINNY LITTLE TRAMP SHE IS. HE IS ACTUALLY A NICE GUY. NOW DONT GO FUCKING TELLING ME I'M A RACIST CUZ I SAID HE WAS A NICE GUY PEOPLE. I DONT AGREE WITH HIS BELIEFS.


KAYNE
 
HumorMe said:



You're right! One day I fear it will be taken away.

Americans in general are just a bunch of fat, lazy, could care less society. We have it too easy. I'm generalizing so don't anybody get their panties in a bunch. We have a shit load of expendable cash so it is easier to buy our way out of our own responsibilities.

I guess I am just old fashioned but I am still proud to be an American. Most of the younger people do not understand what it means to be an American or for that matter even proud.
Click to expand...

I agree......good post

unless the whole system is revamped, and major changes are made......ie eliminating special interest groups, changing the tax code, making it a law to bar the government from doing business with former politicians serving on boards of companies, etc.....then it will remain the same. Which kind of makes it a non factor in voting. How can an individual aware of the unethical, corrupt, hypocritical behavior, vote these same individuals back into office? since the corruption is rampant on both sides of the fence, a common excuse is to use well, this side is worse than the other.........so I'll turn a blind eye, or justify the blatant corruption of my party, by voting them in......................and I agree with Nature Boy. Politicians salaries should be based on the work they accomplish for their constituents. Also those salaries should be set, and voted on by the voting people in their districts. I think they would see a sharp decrease in pay, and benefits.......unless they were productive workers. And yes, limit the other items you mentioned also
 
i do vote whenever i can

but i also despair at
a) the rest of the populace gets to as well :D
b) the poltical parties or the main ones seem to deviate towards similar policies when it comes to businesses etc
c) when a company gives the same $$ to one party as to the other
:(
 
You are right , David Duke is actually a nice guy to talk to. His view are out of the ordinary but they will work. Now i wonder what would happen if he ran for Pres. and got ellected??????????/
 
Until about two years ago, I only voted federal elections, congress, etc. Now I vote everything:school board, judges, town cuncil, etc on up to Prez.
 
I've missed one in the past three years. It was a city council election, and my vote would be wasted in my town.
 
Since I'm 18 I always did. Municipal (Pierre Bourque), Provincial (ADQ-Mario Dumont) and Federal (Conservatives then Liberals)...
 
Nothing like a good election! Hell yeah.

I wish we had campaigns for school crossing cards here!
 
gymnpoppa said:



That'll cost you.......warmonger ;)
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, I wouldn't be too surprised to see Kirk do rather well. Cornyn hasn't gotten his name out at all. I don't think he has the money. The one thing that could really hurt Kirk is E. Texas not liking blacks so much.
 
vinylgroover said:


That's very sad. It's not until democracy is taken away that people realise how important a right it is. People all over the world are dying fighting for that very right.
Click to expand...

We are not meant to be a democracy. For those who went to public schools: there was no all encompassing "right to vote".

Not until the 19th amendment, did women have the right to vote and until the 26th amendment which allowed for anyone 18 or above. Prior to this the country was based on the principle that only white male land owners could vote. This was based on both culture (gender and race) and philosophy (land owners had greater vested interest in the welfare of the nation). I favor the philosophical aspect, and believe that a job should be a requirement to vote.

As for voting in local and state elections, the 17th amendment screwed up state's authority, giving the power of electing senators to the people:

The Constitution of 1787 provided for the appointment of United States senators by state legislatures. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, installing the current regime of direct election of U.S. senators.

The bloated and special-interest-driven nature of the federal government during this century has led scholars in recent years to reexamine the original framework of the Senate and to consider the causes of the Seventeenth Amendment and its consequences for U.S. twentieth-century politics and society. C. H. Hoebeke’s The Road to Mass Democracy is an important addition to this growing literature.

According to Hoebeke, the Senate was explicitly modeled after the British House of Lords. It was intended to be an upper-class, conservative body that would check the populism of the democratic House of Represen-tatives. State legislatures would serve as intermediaries identifying and elevating to the Senate the "best men," marked by ability, virtue, and achievement. The Senate would be a "natural" aristocracy, "an agency which would fulfill a function similar to that of the [House of] Lords in checking the runaway tendencies of popular rule, but which at the same time would remain a non-hereditary body" (p. 45).

Hoebeke argues that the idea of using state legislatures as the instrument to create an anti-democratic and conservative body was flawed from the outset. After all, the Constitution itself was a reaction to the democratic excesses of the states and their governments during the period of the Articles of Confederation. The notion that those same state legislatures would appoint senators who would buck a popular tide was absurd. As he demonstrates, even after the adoption of the Constitution the state governments remained far more receptive than the national government to populist reforms.

Despite these flaws, appointment of senators by state legislatures was one of the least controversial elements of the new Constitution. Popular election of senators was proposed at the Constitutional Convention but received almost no support. Beginning after the Civil War, however, and escalating through the late nineteenth century, proposals for direct election became increasingly frequent, until the Seventeenth Amendment was finally adopted.

Traditional explanations for the passage of the Seventeenth Amend-ment can be divided into two categories: "internal" and "external" (Todd J. Zywicki, "Senators and Special Interests: A Public Choice Analysis of the Seventeenth Amendment," Oregon Law Review 73 [Winter 1994]: 1007). Neither explanation, however, fully explains the genesis of the amendment.

Internal theorists see the Seventeenth Amendment as a response to the perceived evils of the original method of electing senators, which over time was alleged to have become marked by corruption and gridlock. In some instances the battles in the state legislatures became so charged that no senator was elected at all, resulting in a vacancy in that seat. As Hoebeke notes, these internal explanations overstate the problems with the original system, as most elections were uneventful. Internal models also provide no explanation for the belief that direct election would eliminate corruption and the influence of money in the electoral process. History has shown that direct election increased reliance on political machines to organize voters and increased the importance of raising money to run statewide popular campaigns. Moreover, less intrusive remedies for perceived problems were available, such as repeal of a federal law requiring election of senators by majority vote of the state legislature, rather than by plurality.

External theorists see the Seventeenth Amendment as a footnote to history, a small part of the larger democratizing influence of the Progressive movement. Traditionally, most exponents of external theories have seen increasing democracy as a positive development, as the Seventeenth Amendment supposedly would remove control of the Senate from the smoke-filled back rooms of political manipulators and machines, replacing this corrupt regime with the beneficent sovereignty of "the people." Hoebeke is an externalist, as he sees the genesis of the Seventeenth Amend-ment in an ideological commitment to democratic principles and ideals, and especially in Rousseau’s concept of the "general will." Unlike the Progres-sives, however, Hoebeke views this commitment to democracy as misplaced and as having consequences unforeseen by proponents of direct election.

For both Hoebeke and the Progressives, direct election of U.S. senators was to be the leading edge of a movement to bring to the federal government the democratic changes occurring on the state level, such as recall, referendum, and judicial elections. But nothing of the sort ever happened. There is no national recall, referendum, or election of federal judges; just direct election of senators. Moreover, the evolution of the electoral college into a democratic institution suggests an alternative evolutionary model for the Senate. In fact, by 1913 most states had adopted mechanisms to allow the people to vote directly for senators, thereby seemingly obviating the need for a constitutional amendment. Thus, the external explanations proffered by Hoebeke and the Progressives are incomplete.

Perhaps a more fundamental problem with Hoebeke’s thesis is his premise that the primary purpose of indirect election by state legislatures was to create an American House of Lords. Emphasizing the aristocratic nature of the Senate causes Hoebeke to minimize the role of the Senate in the structure of the Constitution. In the original Constitution, the Senate was an essential element of both federalism and bicameralism. Hoebeke recognizes these structural features but discounts their importance. In doing so, he ignores a critical element in the story of the Seventeenth Amendment.

Jay S. Bybee ("Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism and the Sirens’ Song of the Seventeenth Amendment," Northwestern University Law Review 91 [Forthcoming, Winter 1997]) argues that the primary purpose of having state legislatures elect senators was to give the states a constituent part in the federal government, thereby appeasing the anti-federalists, protecting the states from federal encroachment, and creating and preserving the structure of federalism. Senators were seen as, and acted as, the states’ "ambassadors" to the federal government, representing the states and their interests.

The Senate was also an important part of the bicameral legislature. The ability of factions or special interests to capture control of the federal government was mitigated by requiring bills to receive the approval of the public, speaking through their representatives in the House, and the approval of the state legislatures, speaking through their representatives in the Senate. The transition to direct election made the constituencies represented in the House and Senate more similar, thereby facilitating creation of logrolling agreements across the two houses of the national legislature. Moreover, it made the procurement of special-interest legislation easier by allowing special interests to lobby the Senate directly, rather than having to proceed through the intermediaries of the state legislatures. In an era of increasing interstate commerce, accompanied by the development of groups whose interests crossed state lines, these "economies of scale" in lobbying were critical. Direct election thereby weakened the protections of bicameralism and made special-interest legislation easier to obtain (Zywicki, pp. 1039–47).

In preserving federalism and bicameralism, the Senate did an extraordinary job before 1913. Throughout the nineteenth century, the federal government remained small and special-interest legislation was limited. The activity of the federal government was largely confined to the provision of "public goods" such as defense and international relations (Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 114). Although the federal government grew during national crises such as war, the passing of the crisis brought a return to a small federal government (Roger E. Meiners, "Economic Considerations in History: Theory and the Little Practice," in Economic Imperialism, edited by G. Radnitzky and P. Bernholz. New York: Paragon House Publishers, 1987, p. 95). The so-called "ratchet effect" of federal intervention persisting after the dissipation of the crisis that spawned it was scarcely evident in American history before World War I (Higgs, p. 30). The role of the Senate in thwarting special-interest activity on the national level and protecting the autonomy of the states was critical in preserving this arrangement.

The Seventeenth Amendment was not just a rebellion of "the people" against an inherently aristocratic institution, as Hoebeke suggests. It was primarily a rebellion of emerging special interests against federalism and bicameralism, which restrained the ability of the federal government to produce legislation favorable to those interests. Changing the method of electing senators changed the rules of the game for seeking favorable legislation from the federal government, fostering the massive expansion of the federal government in the twentieth century. Even if Hoebeke has failed to tell the full story of the Seventeenth Amendment, however, he has made an important contribution to our understanding of the system of representative democracy established by the Constitution and the forces that shape its evolution.
Click to expand...
 
cockdezl said:



As for voting in local and state elections, the 17th amendment screwed up state's authority, giving the power of electing senators to the people:
Click to expand...

do you realize that here in Canada most people want this right ? :)
 
cockdezl said:


Most people want a million dollars, for no work, too;)
Click to expand...

yup but here things are different. Senators usually are 70 yr and older. It's like a funny trip for a bunch of people who've been good and licked enough politicians' butts.
 
2Thick said:
I hear many people either complaining about our government or shocked at what they do, so who here does something about it and votes?
Click to expand...

I vote but I don't know that it helps much. If I were retired and had a lot of time on my hands, I might be a political activist. I barely have time to take a proper shit now. Yet I find time to chat on here. Got to have some entertainment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
let’s talk water!
Replies
8
Views
460
ROIDDERS
ROIDDERS
D
do women need support pct?
Replies
6
Views
277
Ulter
Ulter
Allupfromhere
The Coach you choose matters!
Replies
12
Views
564
rizzlekdizzle
rizzlekdizzle
O
How much deca is too much?
Replies
8
Views
565
2Thick
2Thick
B
Help me pick my cycle compounds.
Replies
15
Views
301
Big O Cody
B
Top Bottom