2 ms·

I'm sorry that you're offended. However, stating that you are offended, and then re-asserting your belief in voting really doesn't do anything to show my where

I'm sorry that you're offended. However, stating that you are offended, and then re-asserting your belief in voting really doesn't do anything to show my where the error is in my argument. I'd have an easier time understanding where I've gone astray if you could address my two questions: 1. Is it immoral to vote by dice? 2. In what ways does an ignorant voter, reacting emotionally to propaganda, differ from voting by dice?

siculars 16y ago
1. No, it is not immoral to vote by dice. 2. Imho, the act of voting in and of itself encompass a conscious decision to act. To act requires thought. Who are we to judge the beliefs or thought process that leads a citizen to vote? Even if the voter was "reacting emotionally to propaganda", so what? I find it interesting that you use three very loaded words within a span of four. Reacting. You paint this voter as reptilian. Incapable of thought and merely reacting to various primal instincts. Emotionally. You impugn this voters ability to remain uncompromised and imply a certain level of deficit. Propaganda. You concern yourself with the message the citizen receives and pass judgment as to whether or not it meets your standards of information. [edit] Allow me to elaborate on your first question. You either have the right to vote or you do not. If I chose to vote based on which side of the bed I woke up on then so be it. To say otherwise is to assert your opinion over my right. You, Sir, are emotionally compromised on this issue.
Jun8 16y ago
Seriously, I thought you were being tongue in cheek in your comments. If you're serious, then your idea of rating people according to some measure (you advocate some hazy notion of informedness, but it's not important what it is) and denying people who score low is outrageous. In fact, in principle, this is no different than saying blacks, or women, or gays, etc. should not vote! Let me state it simply: Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote). It's not up to you, or me, or the government to dictate or judge what they will do with their vote. They can roll a dice, use Tarot cards, be influenced by O'Reilly, whatever. It's their right to use however they see fit. Ideas like yours do great damage because they provide fuel to idiotic movements like the Tea Party.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  > Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets > certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote). The European Union has declared that preventing inmates from voting is an infringment of their human rights. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164
  - Jun8 16y ago
    This is an interesting link, thanks. Although I think the ruling was a against a "blanket ban" on inmate voting and doesn't say that all inmates can vote. Need to have a better look, though. I got curious, so rather than going lunch, did some Wikipedia reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_Sta.... Turns out the right to vote cannot be denied based on : * Religion (in Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3. * "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870) * "On account of sex" (19th Amendment, 1920) * "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" (24th Amendment, 1964) Conversely, this means that the right can be denied based on other factors, just not one of the above. It also says: "As of July 2007, fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life." This is outrageous, and should be considered a cruel and unusual punishment! When someone servers their term, they should be given their citizenship rights back.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life I agree that this is heinous. Through this means, the political process can hijack the judicial system to eliminate dissent. This means, for example that anyone who had been convicted of sodomy (back when that was still a crime, and if it had been a felony) would be barred from participating in the democratic process, e.g., for pursuing gay marriage. When someone servers their term, they should be given their citizenship rights back. But: are you willing to also return to them their 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms? (for the record, I am)
aliston 16y ago
A large number of voters voting by dice would have no effect on elections in which a plurality is required to win...

siculars 16y ago

1. No, it is not immoral to vote by dice. 2. Imho, the act of voting in and of itself encompass a conscious decision to act. To act requires thought. Who are we to judge the beliefs or thought process that leads a citizen to vote? Even if the voter was "reacting emotionally to propaganda", so what? I find it interesting that you use three very loaded words within a span of four. Reacting. You paint this voter as reptilian. Incapable of thought and merely reacting to various primal instincts. Emotionally. You impugn this voters ability to remain uncompromised and imply a certain level of deficit. Propaganda. You concern yourself with the message the citizen receives and pass judgment as to whether or not it meets your standards of information. [edit] Allow me to elaborate on your first question. You either have the right to vote or you do not. If I chose to vote based on which side of the bed I woke up on then so be it. To say otherwise is to assert your opinion over my right. You, Sir, are emotionally compromised on this issue.

Jun8 16y ago

Seriously, I thought you were being tongue in cheek in your comments. If you're serious, then your idea of rating people according to some measure (you advocate some hazy notion of informedness, but it's not important what it is) and denying people who score low is outrageous. In fact, in principle, this is no different than saying blacks, or women, or gays, etc. should not vote! Let me state it simply: Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote). It's not up to you, or me, or the government to dictate or judge what they will do with their vote. They can roll a dice, use Tarot cards, be influenced by O'Reilly, whatever. It's their right to use however they see fit. Ideas like yours do great damage because they provide fuel to idiotic movements like the Tea Party.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
> Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets > certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote). The European Union has declared that preventing inmates from voting is an infringment of their human rights. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164
- Jun8 16y ago
  This is an interesting link, thanks. Although I think the ruling was a against a "blanket ban" on inmate voting and doesn't say that all inmates can vote. Need to have a better look, though. I got curious, so rather than going lunch, did some Wikipedia reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_Sta.... Turns out the right to vote cannot be denied based on : * Religion (in Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3. * "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870) * "On account of sex" (19th Amendment, 1920) * "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" (24th Amendment, 1964) Conversely, this means that the right can be denied based on other factors, just not one of the above. It also says: "As of July 2007, fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life." This is outrageous, and should be considered a cruel and unusual punishment! When someone servers their term, they should be given their citizenship rights back.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life I agree that this is heinous. Through this means, the political process can hijack the judicial system to eliminate dissent. This means, for example that anyone who had been convicted of sodomy (back when that was still a crime, and if it had been a felony) would be barred from participating in the democratic process, e.g., for pursuing gay marriage. When someone servers their term, they should be given their citizenship rights back. But: are you willing to also return to them their 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms? (for the record, I am)

aliston 16y ago

A large number of voters voting by dice would have no effect on elections in which a plurality is required to win...