Modern Civics

While I agree that we can, and should, adapt our country as times change. The fact remains that we are left with the foundation they laid down. And it just indicates that this "free democracy" you speak of has never existed, and like true Communism may never be feasible in the real world.

Maybe it even gets sent out a week before the ballots are printed, and must be returned by the day before. True, but the major issues of the day are usually pretty stable over the election, or even multiple elections. If the candidate doesn't have anything to say on those issues, he may indicate that on the quesitonaire, but it would seem a bit problematic. No, but he can be recalled. But I'm not even an advocate of that. It would just be something that could be hauled out during the next election."According to your questionaire, you said your plan was to lower taxes for those making under $200,000/year. Yet you voted against that bill, why?"I'm assuming the media or the opposing candidate would use it to great advantage and make the incumbent explain their inconsistencies. And if everyone did, this would be anon-issue. I agree that this is crap. I assumed it was a copy of the ballot, but an unofficial one, so that you could preview what was on the ballot. I would support those.I don't advocate trying to influence your vote in a partisan manner. I don't care how someone votes, I just want them to be aware of what they're voting for or against.

By major issues, I mean exactly what I've been saying: The top 3-5 issues as revealed in polls. True, there may be some people out there for whom those issues are at the bottom, but we couldn't contain every issue anyone anywhere has, so statistically, at least one of the top 5 are probably in your top 5.And if it isn't, you're not really any worse off than you are now, except you've had to take the extra 10 minutes or so and elarn about some of the issues you may not have considered much (or not learned anything and just copied the answers to get to the vote.) And Jose still has that right. But he's also now a bit more informed (or not) about some of the other issues likely to come up during this session.

Perhaps, in the technological age we live in, they could have a list where people can elect to receive the resolution via e-mail rather than snail mail. People would still receive it and do as they wish, but it should reduce the costs inherent with sending out mail.

Because it leaves everything as is...and as is is broken. Something needs to change. This is my proposal...what's yours? If a politician answering questions about his stances on the issues that matter the most to most people is propaganda, then I guess it is. But then everything even remotely connected to politics would be propaganda, making it a very watered-down word and no longer necessarily a bad thing.The difference I see is that it doesn't try and tell you what to think, it merely gives you the data at hand and lets you make your own decisions about it.You seem very passionate about how terrible this idea is. I'm not sure why it's gotten your dander up so much. It might make voting take a little longer, but it would do nothing to stop people from voting based on stupid reasons, based on personal reasons, or based on any reason whatsoever, it merely gives each voter more information which he or she can use to help decide which way to vote. If a person wants to ignore it, then they can.I think my proposal is less of an impediment to voting than the new law in WI that requires a state-issued ID card. If you can't make it down to the DMV, I guess you're not good enough to vote. But if you don't know squat about anything on the ballot, your vote is welcomed with open arms.

Your solution for making sure voters are aware of what the resolution they're voting on this year means, is to send all of them back to elementary school? Strange idea. I believe that's what I'm trying to do. Are you on the ballot? If so, sure, as long as your opponent has the same ability. If you're not, no, because it matters not a whit. Well, good, we agree on something.

But the point you are making has no bearing on what I'm proposing. People can be as well taught as possible, and still not understand the wording on a ballot.People can be as well taught as possible, and still not be able to hear a candidate's proposals to take care of the deficit, or engage in war, or whatever else is important to the populace that election cycle. Wow, hyperbole? I'm more libertarian than fascist, but my Libertarian streak has a caveat. "People should be free to do as they please unless what they want to do hurts others" Voting blindly hurts people. I'd really rather someone who doesn't know what he/she is voting for or against just stay home, but I can't force them to. The only political ideologies being "shoved down your throat" are those of the people on the ballot. Voting, in essence, is shoving someone's political ideologies down someone else's throat, so don't give me that.Even if I had the resources and time to send out a quesitonaire to every poltical candidate, there is no reason for them to fill it out. Even if all of them did, I could never send the answers to everyone. It's not laziness, it's practicality. Ooh, sexual hyperbole. And it's very easy to ignore what the other people are doing. If you want to make uninformed decisions, go right ahead, but please excuse me if I think your choice should count less compared to somone who took the time to know the positions of the person they're voting for. Damn ignorantist.

I don't care if people agree with me or not. They can take the information, come to a different conclusion, and vote however they want. I don't want to control the vote, I want to make sure people are making informed decisions rather than randomly checking a box or pulling a lever.Do you really want a government chosen by chance, rather than by the actual goals of the populace? Totally wrong! If it was about the individual, each individual would get the person they voted for representing them. But seeing as how we tally votes and choose a winner based on the preference of the populace, your argument seems to be totally wrong. You like to throw the word fascist around. In fact, it seems to be your biggest argument. Could you care to explain where I have advocated a single party-totalitarian regime? An outlawing of liberalism or conservatism? Perhaps anything that a fascist would want? Whereas you're just lazy. Can you come up with a better description of a non-fascist than fascist? Didn't think so.

You want to take away a person's right to vote?Fascist.

Weird. Sounds like you're saying that informed people make better decisions for the good of all than those who vote soley based on what they think is best for them?Fascist.

Who is advocating this?