ACORN

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm going to reply to this a little out of order.

Again, not speaking for ACORN but for myself and my impressions, but ACORN's place should be to address the ignorance of the populace through information.

Maybe that should be its place, but the reality is that it is not what ACORN was started for nor what its stated intent is. Looking on their home page yields this statement:

The goal of ACORN and Project Vote's voter registration drives is to empower low-income and minority communities by giving them a voice in the political process. ACORN hopes that expanding the electorate will result in more candidates who appeal to historically underrepresented voting populations.

Two things stand out in this statement. The first is that no claim is made that that demographic is being kept from voting. The second is the demographic itself. When those groups do vote, they vote primarily for the Democrats. You can chose to believe that that choice of demographic is a coincidence if you so desire.

The first step in the information process should be letting people know how they can involve themselves and how easy it is.

People raised in the USA should already know this if they paid any attention in school. Immigrants are taught this as part of the naturalization process. At least in the state of Washington, state sponsored "get out the vote" TV commercials usually appear in the summer months of election years. So, just who needs the additional information?

I don't know ACORN's policies

They are very straightforward on their site (link above). I don't think they are very interested in an apolitical agenda, to say the least.

And hell, if you want to follow the argument to the theoretical conclusion the reason that voter fraud is perpetrated with the ease it is can partially be attributed to the fact that we have a relatively low turn out creating a large gap in which fraud can thrive.

Right. And people that get mugged deserve it because they shouldn't have been in *that* part of town. And women that get raped were probably asking for it. And if you don't have steel doors and bars on your windows, then home invasion is your fault. You might just want to rethink that idea.

I haven't totally written off the chance that mickey mouse actually shows up to vote. who knows?

I don't see why not, I hear he voted early and often for Regan both as governor and president. :lol:

Maybe we should have a test which can decern who is a "good" voter or a "bad" voter that way we can weed out all the people who shouldn't be part of our democracy. <_<

And that, in my opinion, is the only interesting thing in this post. Consider that we have always had limits on who could vote. When the Constitution was ratified, effectively it was only white christian men of British descent and of property. It was felt that they were the only ones with enough of a stake in the country to vote for the good of the country. That argument is not completly fallacious. Over the succeeding two and a quarter (almost) centuries, that has been greatly expanded as it was realized that not gender, race, religion, or natural origin are good indicators of the ability to show good judgement. We still restrict it by age, thus a moron, chronologically thiry but mentally ten, can vote, but a genius ten year old with the understanding of a normal thirty year old cannot. We are restricted by legal condition, convicted criminals lose their right to vote but it may be reinstated. There might be additional restrictions I am not aware of, but unfortunately, the State of Washington web pages with additional info are broken at this time. Of course, non-citizens including long term residents who've never applied for citizenship cannot vote. So, exclusions are not new nor uncommon.

Now, consider what voting is. It is the ultimate political power that determines the course of our nation (and given the present situation, that of much of the world). Looking at it in that light, perhaps to weed out all the people who shouldn't be part of our democracy isn't that bad an idea. Voting is expressing an opinion on an issue. There can be, often are, valid differences of opinion amongst people who understand the issue. But should the vote of those that do understand the issue be counted as cheaply as the votes of those that don't? Indeed, should those that don't understand the issue be permitted to vote on it at all? Should those that pay no attention to politics and then vote the straight party ticket, often without even recognizing many of the names they voted for, be counted equally to those who've studied the issues and the candidates and attempt to vote for what they think is best. And should those that vote for runious measures to their advantage be considered as worthy to be citizens as those that will put the good of the country first?

I believe that the right to live in a country is broader than the right to be a citizen (and thus a voter) in that country. The first is given by birth or legal immigration. The second, I feel, should be earned. And, to earn it, I think there should be certain minimum requirements. The most fundemental is the mental abilty to understand what citizenship is, its duties and responsibilities. Next, a certain level of knowledge should be required. A basic high scool equivalency should suffice if the requirements aren't set too low. Third, if one wants to be placed in the position of ruling the state, then he should show that he is willing to serve the state. Military service comes to mind, and indeed many countries require military service for full citizenship (and failure to comply, in some counties, makes you a criminal). However, military service is not suitable for everyone, and alternatives in schools, police, firefighting, health care, peace corps, etc. should be available. But, the basis that those who wish to rule must first serve should be adheared to, and 'cheap' tickets to the ballot should not exist. Finally, in every election, the first part of the ballot should be a series of simple factual questions, taken from a publically available source such as the Woman's League Voter's Pamphlet. Failure to answer a sufficient percent (I'd hold out for seventy, but that's my Catholic school background, we didn't have 'D') correctly would invalidate the rest of the ballot. If you don't know the facts, how can you have valid opinions?

So, that (minus a world of details) is my answer to "Democracy is the system of government where opinions are counted but not weighed." Of course, the details are difficult. The intent is to weed out the apathetic, the self-servers, the ignorant. At the same time, every care must be taken to include all people who are informed, who do want the good of the state, who care. I propose this not as a viable direction for the USA to go, but as an ideal for a well regulated country. It is, in many ways, the closest we can come to a Jeffersonian ideal with the realistic population that exists.

Now, let the games begin:)

--Pete