Modern Civics

You are willing to rely on some of the issues to be vetted in the media, but not all. When would this quiz, that is a pre-requisite to even getting on the ballot, be generated? Wouldn't the incumbent have the most info to put on the quiz if it was necessary to make the quiz before getting on the ballot?In my opinion, the information about what your governor was going to do was out there in plenty of time for the electorate to find out about it, and for the opposition to rake the governor over the coals about it. Your objection seems to be that you wanted another chance to make sure people had watched TV.I don't want, what in my view would be campaign literature, shoved in my face before I get to vote. When people hand me "sample ballots" to look at before I get into the polling place, I throw them straight into the trash, preferably while in view of the distributor.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

More business can operate in the city providing places for his children to work so that they can afford health care, food, shelter etc.

What you say seems intuitively correct, but we've seen similar arguments being made to justify limiting the reach of the EPA. Apparently some people believe that dumping air and water pollution into their own cornflakes can be justified if it creates jobs or generates cheap energy.

I disagree. Some people make those choices despite knowing exactly what the EPA does because they calculate cost/benefit differently they you do. Pro football players continue to play football knowing that doing so shortens their life span. Smokers smoke despite the fact that whatever benefit they attain from so doing comes at a terrible cost. Some people don't care one whit if all the polar bears drown .It is a mistake to believe that a little more information will change Republican voters into Democrats or Democrats into Libertarians. And that's besides your correct point about voting rights.

In other words, well before the general election. I see some pretty significant problems with that, but perhaps we could fix it by making it a late requirement. The plan that might evolve over time, and candidates don't necessarily have the answer to everything that might come up during the election. Sounds awful hollow to me. It's not like you can impeach the dude for failing to keep his promises. I take the responsibility to inform myself. Do you know what a sample ballot is? In case you don't, a sample ballot is a mock ballot filled out by a partisan showing you how to vote for his favored candidates. They are handed out as close to the polling place door as the law allows. I don't need that crap.

This isn't the way the three billy goats gruff handled a similar situation.

It's a reply to your stated position that the number of issues that percolated down to the people for direct decision should be reduced.Given that your comment necessarily refers to decisions that are already being made by the people, it seems silly to complain about a lack of tools for doing that more efficiently.

I suppose that I am the one who introduced "jack boots" into the conversation, but in my defense, I think it was clear from the context that I was joking.I think the accusation of fascism is beyond the pale, and entirely inappropriate. I believe that the current proposal for informing voters is wrong, but it is no more fascist than is a driver's license road test.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Of course not. Perhaps if you tried to force a two child policy on other people for the good of the state?

I'll agree that dictatorships can be more efficient at enforcing a specific desirable policy than is consensus building in a democracy. But I still don't want to live in a country ruled by a dictator. I don't trust them to come up with the best policies in the first place.