Dave and Greg, can I include your comments in another post, with some thoughts of my own. You both raise valid and important perspectives. I'm hoping others will respond.
what I'm suggesting is going back to voting as it was - in person on one day, with absentee ballots available for those that ask. Stop getting votes from people with no interest in voting by harvesting their votes in exchange for cash or coercion. Make an effort to vote or don't. I'm also OK with online voting if someone can convince me it can be done securely and having public voting sites for same (e.g. public libraries). But I want their to be some effort involved, however minimal, to cast a vote.
"Stop getting votes from people with no interest in voting by harvesting their votes in exchange for cash or coercion."
These are federal crimes. What is your evidence that these crimes are committed? I'm not even aware of this being a problem in the US.
"Make an effort to vote or don't. I'm also OK with online voting if someone can convince me it can be done securely and having public voting sites for same (e.g. public libraries). But I want their to be some effort involved, however minimal, to cast a vote."
I think any voting already requires effort even though I view voting as a right. As I think about it, this country already has too many barriers to a functioning democracy. Voter suppression, politicians picking their voters, safe districts, money in politics, media owned by billionaires, lack of ethics rules, etc. I really think we should fix these before we attack democracy. Oh, and I already vote in a public library now.
hey Greg - meant to edit my comment as I thought it might be interpreted that way. Wheat I meant is why is there value in folks with no interest in society voting? If the only incentive is to vote themselves some benefit, or to simply do what the vote bundlers tell them to, how is that beneficial to anyone but the criminals posing as politicians? In fact, it is harmful to our society. And don't kid yourself - this happens plenty at the top endo of the economic spectrum, not just the bottom of it.
I think you are suggesting a cure that's the worse option. Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they might vote in their own self interest? And somehow voting in one's self interest only benefits politicians?
Why would any good citizen want 100% participation? I'd rather encourage voting by makers and discourage voting by takers. Takers reside at both ends of the economic spectrum in our society. It is bad enough that we have a Congress peopled with persons mostly interested in using the institution to further their own personal finances. Why encourage an electorate that is the same?
Because it would be a bit narrow minded to think that the only factor that gives value to a person is just the amount of money the person has. Doesn't our Declaration of Independence clearly say otherwise?
Dave and Greg, can I include your comments in another post, with some thoughts of my own. You both raise valid and important perspectives. I'm hoping others will respond.
Sure
ok
what I'm suggesting is going back to voting as it was - in person on one day, with absentee ballots available for those that ask. Stop getting votes from people with no interest in voting by harvesting their votes in exchange for cash or coercion. Make an effort to vote or don't. I'm also OK with online voting if someone can convince me it can be done securely and having public voting sites for same (e.g. public libraries). But I want their to be some effort involved, however minimal, to cast a vote.
"Stop getting votes from people with no interest in voting by harvesting their votes in exchange for cash or coercion."
These are federal crimes. What is your evidence that these crimes are committed? I'm not even aware of this being a problem in the US.
"Make an effort to vote or don't. I'm also OK with online voting if someone can convince me it can be done securely and having public voting sites for same (e.g. public libraries). But I want their to be some effort involved, however minimal, to cast a vote."
I think any voting already requires effort even though I view voting as a right. As I think about it, this country already has too many barriers to a functioning democracy. Voter suppression, politicians picking their voters, safe districts, money in politics, media owned by billionaires, lack of ethics rules, etc. I really think we should fix these before we attack democracy. Oh, and I already vote in a public library now.
hey Greg - meant to edit my comment as I thought it might be interpreted that way. Wheat I meant is why is there value in folks with no interest in society voting? If the only incentive is to vote themselves some benefit, or to simply do what the vote bundlers tell them to, how is that beneficial to anyone but the criminals posing as politicians? In fact, it is harmful to our society. And don't kid yourself - this happens plenty at the top endo of the economic spectrum, not just the bottom of it.
I think you are suggesting a cure that's the worse option. Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they might vote in their own self interest? And somehow voting in one's self interest only benefits politicians?
Why would any good citizen want 100% participation? I'd rather encourage voting by makers and discourage voting by takers. Takers reside at both ends of the economic spectrum in our society. It is bad enough that we have a Congress peopled with persons mostly interested in using the institution to further their own personal finances. Why encourage an electorate that is the same?
Because it would be a bit narrow minded to think that the only factor that gives value to a person is just the amount of money the person has. Doesn't our Declaration of Independence clearly say otherwise?