UK to lower voting age to 16

[Immanuel Can]

Cost-benefit analysis, please.

Benefit: election integrity.
Cost: nothing

Sounds good.

[MikeNovack]

Cure and disease, which is worse.

Disease, of course...always.

If there's a little water in the boat, it's time to act.

No, of course not. The proposed "cure" can easily be worse than the disease. Especially if there is intentional unequal side effects.

EXAMPLE -- Let's make obtaining ID easy IF an official state birth certificate can be produced. But rather difficult if not, say a home birth or birth on an Indian reservation. Is it just chance that I higher percentage of those affected by this (and so might not be able to register to vote) are more likely to be on one side of the political divide than the other?

LIAR -- your motivation is not "election security". Your motivation is a belief that more voters would be disenfranchised on the othetr side than your side.

In the particular matter of "dead voters", it is a belief that allowing early/mail in voting favors the other side.

[Immanuel Can]

Cure and disease, which is worse.

Disease, of course...always.

If there's a little water in the boat, it's time to act.

No, of course not. The proposed "cure" can easily be worse than the disease.

Not in this case, for sure.

EXAMPLE -- Let's make obtaining ID easy IF an official state birth certificate can be produced. But rather difficult if not, say a home birth or birth on an Indian reservation.

Anybody in the US can easily get an ID, if they are a citizen. Many forms of ID are accepted. And if they are not a citizen, then they don't need to vote.

LIAR -- your motivation is not "election security".

This is actually a lie. It couldn't possibly be true, since I don't live in the US. I can't have any effect at all on the American elections. My only motive can be in the democratic process. I can't benefit in any way here.

In the particular matter of "dead voters", it is a belief that allowing early/mail in voting favors the other side.

No. It's the belief that the dead shouldn't vote...or more correctly, that unethical people should not be able to stuff voter roles with the names of the deceased. As for mail-ins, the kind of ballot-box stuffing that has been proven to have gone on in a particular previous election would be eliminated. The idiots who were doing it forgot about two important things: cameras, and cell-phone tracking.

So we know it went on. I just think it shouldn't.

If stuffing boxes and voting on behalf of the dead "favoured" one particular party, what are you suggesting about that party?

[phyllo]

Cost-benefit analysis, please.

Benefit: election integrity.
Cost: nothing

Sounds good.

Poor lame duck.

[Iwannaplato]

Cost-benefit analysis, please.

Benefit: election integrity.
Cost: nothing

Sounds good.

Poor lame duck.

Speaking of lame ducks....
Trump is making noises about a possible third term.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx20lwedn23o

[Wizard22]

You said plebeians. It seems clear you didn't know what the word meant. So in your sarcastic paragraphs which I deleted and this one you made up a whole range of strawman examples.

Plebeians were the working class and the farmer class. That's what it refers to. Maybe you just chose the wrong word. Can happen to any of use. I hope you can manage to admit that. I did ask you specifically what you had against those groups it does refer to.

I said exactly what I meant. Plebs are the uneducated, blissfully ignorant, easily misled "Normie" masses of the Polis. In today's terms, these are average morons who cancel-out high-IQ votes and analysis. A dumbass is "equal" in voting power to somebody with great analysis, wisdom, and intellect. It doesn't work, and it shows. If you can't figure this out, then it becomes clear which group you belong in and represent.

Great the US and what did this Republic do. Through bipartisan agreement it moved to a mixed Republic/Democracy.

The U.S. Constitution was designed with a built-in mechanism for change: the amendment process. By using this process to expand voting rights and direct elections, the "republic" was essentially following its own rules to evolve. It wasn't a departure from the republican form, but a refinement of it using the tools the Founders provided.

Many of the most "democratic" shifts in U.S. history were not purely liberal projects:
The 19th Amendment (Women's Suffrage): Republicans were actually the primary drivers of this amendment in Congress. In the 1919 vote, 91% of House Republicans and 82% of Senate Republicans voted in favor, compared to 60% and 54% of Democrats, respectively.
The 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators): This was a response to widespread corruption and "deadlocks" in state legislatures that left Senate seats vacant for years. It gained broad public support across party lines because both sides saw the old system as broken.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965: While pushed by a Democratic president (LBJ), the bill received higher percentage support from Republicans in both the House (82%) and Senate (94%) than from Democrats, many of whom were conservative Southerners opposing the measure.

I have no ideal what 'literally' America would mean.
I can't imagine anyone thinking you meant America metaphorically. Maybe this is one of your problem areas. You don't quite know what metaphors are and also confuse maps with territory.

I never denied that many Republicans and Republican Administrations are to blame for the degradation of the Republic over time. But the main culprit for America's current Two-Party system, a House Divided, was the allowances granted to the Democrat Party after the Civil War. None of this discounts that the failing structure of the US "Democracy" is occurring as Democracies have always failed, and are predicted to.

It's a problem of Over-Representation, as detailed in this thread. 'Bad' or 'Evil' people shouldn't be represented in a Civil Society. US Democrats show the worst of this from year to year, to the point it becomes comical.

[Iwannaplato]

I said exactly what I meant. Plebs are the uneducated, blissfully ignorant, easily misled "Normie" masses of the Polis. In today's terms, these are average morons who cancel-out high-IQ votes and analysis. A dumbass is "equal" in voting power to somebody with great analysis, wisdom, and intellect. It doesn't work, and it shows. If you can't figure this out, then it becomes clear which group you belong in and represent.

I see you're right on this one. Plebeians is used in a pejorative sense when referring to contemporaries. I guess I only encountered that word in the classics and discussions of them. My mistake.

I never denied that many Republicans and Republican Administrations are to blame for the degradation of the Republic over time. But the main culprit for America's current Two-Party system, a House Divided, was the allowances granted to the Democrat Party after the Civil War. None of this discounts that the failing structure of the US "Democracy" is occurring as Democracies have always failed, and are predicted to.

You're not getting the point: the Republic failed. It led to what you don't like through it's own rules and processes.

It's a problem of Over-Representation, as detailed in this thread. 'Bad' or 'Evil' people shouldn't be represented in a Civil Society.

Yeah, the application of this idea has gone really well. You decide who the bad or evil people are, or your enemies do. And then you get fascism or communism. It's not like I don't see the problems of what gets called democracy. The US is not a democracy or a republic, it's an oligarchy. But your confidence in this hallucinated republic is not grounded in anything.

[Wizard22]

Republics are not supposed to be perfect, and are expected to fail.

In US History, the Founders knew this, and attempted to create governmental restraints. They could not have possibly imagined the height US military power and imperialism would grow. It was a good run.

You missed a critical aspect of The Republic. It is a Re-Public. It's supposed to be reasserted anew, AFTER it inevitably fails. So the next iteration is supposed to be 'better'.

[Immanuel Can]

For those who were criticizing the SAVE Act, by claiming there wasn't an election fraud problem...

New data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bEvqlvGyjU

[Gary Childress]

For those who were criticizing the SAVE Act, by claiming there wasn't an election fraud problem...

New data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bEvqlvGyjU

Well, it does look like pretty convincing evidence to lead one to believe that election fraud is worse than some would have us believe. Seems like corruption for agencies to bribe homeless people to pad votes.

What are your thoughts about corporations paying money to create PACs to influence voters to vote for measures that favor corporations? Is that fair or is that corrupt?

[Immanuel Can]

For those who were criticizing the SAVE Act, by claiming there wasn't an election fraud problem...

New data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bEvqlvGyjU

Well, it does look like pretty convincing evidence to lead one to believe that election fraud is worse than some would have us believe. Seems like corruption for agencies to bribe homeless people to pad votes.

What are your thoughts about corporations paying money to create PACs to influence voters to vote for measures that favor corporations? Is that fair or is that corrupt?

I'm not in favour of corporate -- or union -- donations to political parties. I'm not in favour of state media funded by government, either.

[Gary Childress]

For those who were criticizing the SAVE Act, by claiming there wasn't an election fraud problem...

New data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bEvqlvGyjU

Well, it does look like pretty convincing evidence to lead one to believe that election fraud is worse than some would have us believe. Seems like corruption for agencies to bribe homeless people to pad votes.

What are your thoughts about corporations paying money to create PACs to influence voters to vote for measures that favor corporations? Is that fair or is that corrupt?

I'm not in favour of corporate -- or union -- donations to political parties. I'm not in favour of state media funded by government, either.

I think it is fair to be against state owned media provided that one is also against corporate owned media. However, favoring one but disfavoring the other doesn't seem right.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it does look like pretty convincing evidence to lead one to believe that election fraud is worse than some would have us believe. Seems like corruption for agencies to bribe homeless people to pad votes.

What are your thoughts about corporations paying money to create PACs to influence voters to vote for measures that favor corporations? Is that fair or is that corrupt?

I'm not in favour of corporate -- or union -- donations to political parties. I'm not in favour of state media funded by government, either.

I think it is fair to be against state owned media provided that one is also against corporate owned media.

The problem with state owned media is that it campaigns for the party that pays for it. It doesn't campaign for both sides, and it doesn't stay out of the political battle between them.

We may not be thrilled with corporate media, and it may be less than ideal -- but it does have this much going for it; that it's non-political in its aims, and a lot less politically-biased than state media...or at least, it should be. If we have any media at all, its interests should be limited to things like the ethical, the informational and the pecuniary.

Of course, some corporate media shills for one party or another, but that, too, should be forbidden. Any linking between the political and personal gain is a bad thing for the public. And it's why we have so many awful politicians today.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not in favour of corporate -- or union -- donations to political parties. I'm not in favour of state media funded by government, either.

I think it is fair to be against state owned media provided that one is also against corporate owned media.

The problem with state owned media is that it campaigns for the party that pays for it. It doesn't campaign for both sides, and it doesn't stay out of the political battle between them.

We may not be thrilled with corporate media, and it may be less than ideal -- but it does have this much going for it; that it's non-political in its aims, and a lot less politically-biased than state media...or at least, it should be. If we have any media at all, its interests should be limited to things like the ethical, the informational and the pecuniary.

Of course, some corporate media shills for one party or another, but that, too, should be forbidden. Any linking between the political and personal gain is a bad thing for the public. And it's why we have so many awful politicians today.

And how do you intend to "forbid" corporate media from choosing favorites? I thought you were the one who believes that the global rich are "pro-socialist" (socialism being evil). Is that not true?

[Immanuel Can]

I think it is fair to be against state owned media provided that one is also against corporate owned media.

The problem with state owned media is that it campaigns for the party that pays for it. It doesn't campaign for both sides, and it doesn't stay out of the political battle between them.

We may not be thrilled with corporate media, and it may be less than ideal -- but it does have this much going for it; that it's non-political in its aims, and a lot less politically-biased than state media...or at least, it should be. If we have any media at all, its interests should be limited to things like the ethical, the informational and the pecuniary.

Of course, some corporate media shills for one party or another, but that, too, should be forbidden. Any linking between the political and personal gain is a bad thing for the public. And it's why we have so many awful politicians today.

And how do you intend to "forbid" corporate media from choosing favorites? I thought you were the one who believes that the global rich are "pro-socialist" (socialism being evil). Is that not true?

Did I say I "intended" to intervene? I'm well aware the media is corrupt, and if you can figure out a way to stop them, I'm all ears...but I don't know of one. If they had any ethics, I'd say appeal to those. But I think the only hope might be if the public stops believing them, and opts not to watch them, so their money dries up until they decide to rediscover basic journalistic ethics. But I can't do that alone, of course, and if too many others keep being enchanted with them, they'll never have an incentive to stop. So it might be unsolvable. But it's still terrible news for democracy, if that's the case.

The rich ARE pro-Socialist today. You surely can't miss that all the Hollywood elites, the multiple-mansion owning politicians like the Clintons, Obamas, etc., the heads of corporations like Blackrock and Amazon, or the crazed billionaire demagogues like Soros...all in favour of Socialism. And it shouldn't be that way, should it? Doesn't Marxist theory tell us that those guys are the enemy, the oppressors, the exploiters of the poor? Doesn't the very fact that they're rolling in cash make them suspect? How come they all want Socialism, then...and yet, surprisingly, they have not yet "redistributed" their own wealth to any great degree...how is that?

If that doesn't make you suspicious, I don't know what will. But I think you can figure it out. The Socialism is for you. The money is for them. And you see that modelled every year at Davos, where the rich and privileged fly in on their lear jets and spend a week in some of the world's most luxurious accommodations, eating fine meals and drinking vintage beverages...and they decide how you are going to fight climate change, or COVID, or where the world economy should go...and then they fly back out in their private planes, and return to their luxurious and privileged lifestyles.

Suspicious yet?