h a l f b a k e r yCeci n'est pas une idée.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Quick, name all eleven Supreme Court justices! Odds are you can't do it (well,
okay, I don't mean YOU specifically—just the statistical “you”). In fact, odds are
you didn't even realize that there are only nine justices on the Supreme Court. Assuming you're an American citizen, this situation
is rather unfortunate.
There really should be some way to promote a basic understanding of the workings
of government to the public—who is, after all, tasked with electing that
government. You have to take a civics test in order to become a U.S. citizen, so
why not have one for voting as well?
So as to be extra careful not to disenfranchise anyone, the test would operate as a
“vote multiplier”, based on how many questions you get right. Answering every
question wrong, or failing to answer at all, leaves you at the base rate of a single
vote. Each question you get right adds a given amount to your multiplier.
Questions are all multiple choice and relatively simple. Sample questions might
include:
Which of the following people is the Speaker of the House of Representatives? (1
point)
Which constitutional amendment provides protection from “unreasonable searches
and seizures”? (2 points)
Which of the following people is NOT currently a Supreme Court justice? (1/3
point each question)
How many U.S. Senators are elected from each state? (1 point)
The questions would change with each election cycle, but would be the identical
throughout the entire country. Additionally, the questions would be published
before the election, and bringing a list of answers into the voting booth would be
permitted.
The idea here is not to penalize those who don't do well on the test, but to
incentivize voters to learn about the government they are voting for, as well as to
encourage political organizations to make civics education a part of their election
campaigns. Ideally, every single voter should be able to score 100% on the test
without much difficulty. Accordingly, translations of the questions and answers
would be made into all of the popularly spoken languages throughout the country,
and waivers could be granted to those voters who are unable to comprehend the
questions due to not speaking any of the translated languages or mental disability.
[link]
|
| |
//waivers could be granted to those voters who are unable to comprehend the questions due to not speaking any of the translated languages or mental disability.// It may seem harsh, but doesn't that defeat the purpose? |
|
| |
so basically you want to give the people who are able to game the system the power to game the system. |
|
| |
Yeah, yeah, yeah...I've run into this before with the study captive breeding group of Republicans. "Unless you know what I know, you're stupid and your vote shouldn't count". |
|
| |
//It may seem harsh, but doesn't that defeat the purpose?// |
|
| |
Only for a very small number of citizens, and it's better than
effectively disenfranchising that tiny minority. |
|
| |
//so basically you want to give the people who are able to
game the system the power to game the system// |
|
| |
How is this gaming the system? If you're a foreigner trying to
gain U.S. citizenship, you need to know this stuff anyway, so
it's not unreasonable to expect a U.S. citizen to know it in
order to exercise one of the privileges of citizenship. |
|
| |
//That defeats the whole point of the test. // |
|
| |
Not really. You'd still have to read the questions and respond
with the appropriate answer. Hopefully, you'd at least glean
some information in the process. It'd require more thought
than many people put into such matters now. |
|
| |
Make it too difficult, such that it requires memorization or
critical thought, and you open it up to claims that you're
trying to disenfranchise poor and uneducated voters. That's
not the intent here, and I can't see any way of completely
eliminating such concerns other than making the test
completely open book. If you can't be bothered looking up
the questions beforehand and writing down the answers, or
even bringing the answer key that you got in the mail along
with you, then really, your vote /shouldn't/ count as much as
somebody who can put even the slightest modicum of effort
into understanding the workings of government. |
|
| |
//Unless you know what I know, you're stupid and your vote shouldn't
count// |
|
| |
That's a mischaracterization of this idea. Do you object to the civics
test that's required to become a citizen? |
|
| |
// Ideally, every single voter should be able to score 100% on the test without much difficulty.// |
|
| |
I note that the line of argument has shifted. |
|
| |
Shifted? How so? That was in there from the
beginning… |
|
| |
I actually sortof agree in one sense, but consider: do you require a degree in foodology to order a Big Mac ? |
|
| |
Voting's pretty simple: you like the guy/gal, you vote for them: knowing how things work isn't going to change that. |
|
| |
Of course you want to make sure that the person you vote for is all up on how the system works, but that's not the Idea. |
|
| |
You shouldn't have to go to medical school for 10 years to choose a doctor, or a lawyer, or a politician. |
|
| |
I didn't say it was gaming the system; I said that you're giving the people who know how to game the system more power to do so. Just sayin', not pointing fingers. |
|
| |
Re: the civics test: immigrants haven't grown up in the system: I imagine the test is there to make sure they understand that it isn't the same as the place they left. |
|
| |
//You shouldn't have to go to medical school for 10 years to choose a doctor, or a lawyer, or a politician.// But you should stay informed enough that if a doctor recommends brain surgery for your foot problem, they probably suck at doctoring. I don't think a test should require a lot of knowledge of the system, but it should require some knowledge about what the issues are so that people know their options, for instance they should at least know where the republican party stands on taxes before casting their vote. I've heard people say that they won't vote for Obama because "they don't want to be paying for other peoples' healthcare". Those people should plain not be allowed to vote. TBH I don't think many people should vote, we should just have a meritocracy. |
|
| |
I don't think most of your sample questions are relevant. |
|
| |
If voting for people, they should know what positions those people hold, and the scope of power that the elected office has. |
|
| |
If voting on an issue, they should know about the issue, and the commonly stated arguments for and against the issue. |
|
| |
Knowing the names of supreme court members or speakers would mostly be non-relevant. |
|
| |
What if you're not all up with the government's traditional policy <x> ? |
|
| |
That makes "What is the purpose of <x>" a loaded question since the answer "to look good while screwing over the next generation or two who will grow up thinking it's normal" isn't gonna get you any points. |
|
| |
The real way to do this is to suppress turnout. The
main weakness of any democracy is people actually
vote. |
|
| |
If you could only regulate the speed of light.
Getting around the galaxy would be so much
easier. |
|
| |
As to revenues numbers, one doesn't need to
debate the Laffer Curve -- the best evidence is
the amount of money pushed into this year by
dividend paying companies -- the rich in fact will
always find a way to minimize taxes as long as
deductions and nooks and crannies exist in the tax
code. The best approach is to eliminate
deductions not raise rates. |
|
| |
And as to fairness, there's no scenario where the
progressive or even flat income tax can possibly be
fair, a VAT is the only "progressive" approach that
can be fair, if done properly (i.e. instead of
income tax, not in addition to) |
|
| |
your brother has money offshore? |
|
| |
//his endorsement of the flat tax amounts to trying to shoot himself in the foot// |
|
| |
Putting this specific issue (taxation) aside, along with any other specific issue, I am always a little appalled when someone says something like that. Its a common sentiment, too. |
|
| |
In my opinion, we should see it as our moral duty to vote for the good of the country, for the right thing, for fairness, for justice, etc. |
|
| |
We should NOT just look out for our own individual self interest when we vote. Time and time again I have heard some perplexed person laugh at some group who seem to vote "Against their self interest". People ought to admire it when people do that, so long as it was not otherwise a stupid vote. |
|
| |
Sadly, I think I am almost alone here. |
|
| |
//alone here// fish much ? Anyways, voting for one's-self is how democracy is s'posta work. |
|
| |
But only a true psychopath defines themself as a standalone entity without membership in groups, which well-being occasionally is at odds with that of the individual. |
|
| |
it's progressivity in the tax system that is
disproportionate, by definition. The VAT, on the
other hand, is fairer because while it generates more
revenues from those who spend more, it is their
choice to spend it. The flat tax is better (and fairer)
than the current system, but is inferior to the VAT. |
|
| |
//Anyways, voting for one's-self is how democracy is s'posta work.// |
|
| |
That becomes a problem when a lot of people own slaves, or are on the dole. |
|
| |
//You think the tax distrubution shouldn't match
the wealth distribution? That seems perfectly fair
to me.// |
|
| |
The analogy I like to use is simple. We go to lunch,
or dinner. Some (lame) groups of friends might
consider splitting along the lines of what each
ordered. Most often, groups of friends would split
per family, or person. But I've never heard of
anyone offering to split the bill based on the size
of their paycheck -- and even if someone, in
incredibly good spirits after, say, a win at the
track, might offer to pick up a round, they would
not think much of friends that demanded that
treatment day after day, year after year. |
|
| |
Democracy exercised this way is rather like
extortion (we've thought about it, and we think
you should pay more). It is not what the founders
of this
country envisioned (which is why we needed an
amendment to allow the income tax), and it is
certainly for the worse. |
|
| |
The VAT works at every level: It generates
sufficient revenues for the government, it is "fair"
because avoidance
simply involves saving, rather than spending, it
encourages savings which is good for the
population, it puts no artificial brakes on growth,
and it is "progressive" in the sense of the rich
contributing a lot more than the poor.
Exemptions for those at the bottom of the ladder,
or for food and necessities could easily be made. |
|
| |
So the "masses" are entirely capable of voting
other people to pay for entitlements, but not
capable of voting against wars? Or entitlements
are
the protection money we pay to avoid the
pitchforks at the gate? |
|
| |
"wars in the middle east" and the like are nice fig
leafs, but the reality is, the rich wait as long at
the DMV, and pay the same toll to cross a bridge.
Fighting outsourcing is about as visionary as
fighting the Industrial Revolution. Before long,
automation will replace those jobs, anyway. Might
as well break windows so they can be replaced. |
|
| |
Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument
about percentage of income would mean that a
cell phone should cost you less than Paris Hilton,
since you make less money. If that is truly your
position, then the logical conclusion of that is not
liberalism, it's something significantly left of that,
and fundamentally incompatible with our system
of government, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. |
|
| |
unless you're the muscular guy, and after awhile you notice that they're bundling up all the small things together to make big packages that are "too heavy for us to carry" ... |
|
| |
Christ. Now I really DO regret posting this idea. |
|
| |
Nobody is going to win this argument, because like it or not
taxation (not to mention politics in general) is an emotional
issue for most people. No amount
of logic or debate is going to convince anyone, because
every goddamn person and his uncle is personally invested
in the notion that /his/ way to run the country is the only
rational, reasonable, sane, caring, and by God, /correct/
way to run the country. Just shut up, people. |
|
| |
//Nobody is going to win this argument, because like it or not taxation (not to mention politics in general) is an emotional issue for most people.// That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that we're here, on earth, and we have to work it out somehow. |
|
| |
The Washington Post merely the latest of the
President's unabashed fans announcing that they're
moving dividends into 2012, thus costing the
government (and enriching their shareholders by)
tens of millions of dollars. While writing endlessly
about the problem of money in politics -- this being
people who spend their own money voluntarily on
politics -- as somehow being sinister. Priceless. |
|
| |
I've concluded long ago that there is no optimal taxation solution set that does not need a good basic reworking every now and again as conditions change. Dynamic stability is our economic friend. |
|
| |
[21] -- that's admirable rhetorically, but to me, the
facts that Costco and Washington Post, both
unabashed liberal supporters, just avoided massive
amounts of taxation, that Google, whose
management I'll venture to say voted 100%
Democratic, and whose employees, for that
matter, probably voted 70% Democratic, is hiding
billions in Bermuda, that Tim Geitner was caught
not paying taxes, etc, etc, is not a signal of some
huge hypocrisy -- what else is new -- but a signal
of the massive inefficiency of the current
approach. |
|
| |
So even putting aside the rationale of how much
needs to be spent by the government, when
applying the same principles as I would apply to
say, the drug war -- enormous waste of money,
resources, and a corrupting influence on our
politicians and society -- I realize that progressive
taxation is doing exactly the same, but probably
at N times the waste. |
|
| |
I'm a firm believer in laws -- but to be effective,
laws have to channel "built-in" human principles,
not oppose them by sticking fingers into dikes at
futile efficiency rates. This is why markets work,
within their limits, and socialism fails. This is why
financial regulations tend to fail. This is why
sexual repression laws fail. This is why drug laws
fail. This is ultimately why dictatorships fail,
because you cannot, indefinitely, make people do
what they don't want to do. |
|
| |
But it is easy to have a system that is much more
difficult to game and is fair. A national property
taxes might be interesting, and have a progressive
effect (might even have a re-distributive effect)
without being unfair. These approaches have
their own side effects, to be sure, but they are
not penalizing what ultimately benefits the state -
- growth in income. |
|
| |
I think the two of us have different definitions of
long time and indefinitely :) |
|
| |
Non withstanding the fact that we had slavery in
Mesopotamia, and prior to civilization, gathered
berries and bashed each other's brains out for a
living, and the universal certainty of taxes, it is
not, in my view, taxes that built civilization --
though they were certainly used to build it. It's
the desire to have the largest harem. I guess on
this we just differ. |
|
| |