Perry , Rick GOP 6,742 0% Huntsman , Jon GOP 6,182 0% Bachmann , Michele GOP 3,947 0% Cain , Herman GOP 3,481 0% Johnson , Gary GOP 1,186 0% Of course anyone can vote for anyone, even for people that aren’t running. You can probably write yourself in as a candidate. But why go all the way to the poll and vote for Cain (3K+ votes), Bachman (4K+ votes), Perry (6K+ votes)? That’s over 13K votes to GOP candidates that aren’t even running, some for many weeks.
& why not?
They do not want to vote for the other guys and do not want to support the candidates that are still running so they vote for their candidate (I assume) and they express their opinion. What is wrong with that?
At least they were not lazy and did not stay home.
Now: granted this is Florida and some of the old folks may not know what is going on 
Fred.
This always happens. In fact, last week I heard somebody say they were going to vote for Perry, and when she was informed he wasn’t running anymore, she was surprised. People don’t pay attention. That is why compulsory voting as suggested in another thread is a bad idea. Again, we should be limiting who can vote.
This always happens. In fact, last week I heard somebody say they were going to vote for Perry, and when she was informed he wasn’t running anymore, she was surprised. People don’t pay attention. That is why compulsory voting as suggested in another thread is a bad idea. Again, we should be limiting who can vote.
Bingo! Voting booths should be outfitted with a multiple choice security pass. If you can’t answer all three questions correctly, then NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Actually voter IQ tests have been proven unconstitutional. I like only those who have paid taxes being allowed. I think it is totally constitutional and prevents people from voting for more largess.
I like only those who have paid taxes being allowed.
The problem with this is the question “What taxes?”. Federal, State, local, sales, property…utility fees, license fees…bottled watered tax, fast food tax…the list goes on.
~Matt
Shit, that would half of the Presidents administration wouldnt be able to vote.
I like only those who have paid taxes being allowed.
The problem with this is the question “What taxes?”. Federal, State, local, sales, property…utility fees, license fees…bottled watered tax, fast food tax…the list goes on.
~Matt
I almost went into that but that could easily become a topic or even a thesis of its own. Should that become law, it could easily become manipulated so that more people could vote. So to regulate it, you would need a measure. The 1040 would become the ultimate measure for federal election purposes. If sales tax, gas tax, etc were to be applied, they would have their own line on the form. Here in florida we have been able to deduct sales tax over the last two years since we do not pay income tax. Unless you have actual receipts, you are given an average factor based on income. So that would likely be the likely measure for sales, or gas taxes. So for it to count in the equation it would go on the 1040. Before we get into making the tax code more complicated, I will say upfront that is a moot point. It is already so complex, that this simple reporting methodology would be easy to apply. If we are really concerned about fairness and ease of taxation, reporting and compliance. We would go to a flat rate with a set deduction, or a consumption tax with provisions to help the poor. The Fairtax addresses such concern, and while not ideal is a start. For local elections, a property tax bill would be suffice. It might even be fair to say that a utility bill would be sufficient. ]
Ultimately what would count towards eligibility would be a political discussion. But regardless of the outcome, the result would be fairer. If you do not pay taxes or get excess direct benefit (welfare, EIC, college grants) you don’t have a say. If we shrink these rolls so that more people vote, I’m all for it.
Shit, that would half of the Presidents administration wouldnt be able to vote
I’m still trying to find statistics on comparisons between federal employees “Behind in taxes” and the private sector. Would be an interesting comparison to see if there was any significant difference.
~Matt
I almost went into that but that could easily become a topic or even a thesis of its own.
So in short, simply the tax code from federal to local. THEN if you don’t pay taxes you don’t vote.
That would be more feasible, but I’m not sure I would agree with it.
“Paying taxes” does not make one more “Worthy” or “Unworthy” of of having their rights protected.
Of course if the only thing the government was doing was protecting our rights we likely wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
~Matt
I think it would be fair to exempt federal employees, especially military. Afterall aren’t they supposed to be public servants ;). Seriously, I’m specifically talking about excess tax credit/benefits vs contribution. I get and see how it can become complicated, but that is why my approach is simple and a starting point. I would exempt military as most lower rank soldiers, marines, airman, and sailors do not pay taxes yet sacrifice so much. They are the ones that die the most in war and many of their families live on food stamps. So I think the sacrifice factor counts for something.
I almost went into that but that could easily become a topic or even a thesis of its own.
So in short, simply the tax code from federal to local. THEN if you don’t pay taxes you don’t vote.
That would be more feasible, but I’m not sure I would agree with it.
“Paying taxes” does not make one more “Worthy” or “Unworthy” of of having their rights protected.
Of course if the only thing the government was doing was protecting our rights we likely wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
~Matt
I’ll be the first to admit, the theory/opinion I presented is a simple approach that would have to get worked out through political means. But the intentions are clear. We have an ever expanding list of people who do not pay taxes or get excess benefits and they are demanding that those who are pay their fair share. That is unfair and unamerican. Most importantly this was predicted centuries ago. The ultimate goal should be to reduce the number of people who fund their necessities at the ballot instead of by the fruits of their labor. Because a society cannot last long once a certain percentage of society is doing that. Where is that point I don’t know. I would have thought it would have been before 50%.
If it’s ok to have “no taxation without representation” then what’s wrong with “no representation without taxation”?
That will be the motto for the new country I’m going to found…
“Paying taxes” does not make one more “Worthy” or “Unworthy” of of having their rights protected.
If speaking from a federal level, I am not aware of the bill or right or constitution stating that people have a right to vote.
The fact that this is somehow news to you gives us a good indication of the reading material they give you in the asylum…
Don’t disagree with what you’re saying. My point however is that if government was limited to only those things that some of us believe they are supposed to do, people would have no reason to base their “Vote” on “Getting something from the government”, because there would be very few people and very few cases where this would be possible.
Contrast that to today where 4 out of every 10 dollars in the Us are spent by the government and almost everyone “Gets” something from the government in one way or another and thus has a monetary stake to their vote.
~Matt
My response here was in reference to another poster saying.
Shit, that would half of the Presidents administration wouldnt be able to vote.
I read an article the other day railing on the Obama administration, congress and federal employees about “Being behind on taxes”.
Something like 800K plus owed by those in the 452 positions of the administration or something like that. They listed numbers for congress as well as the post office.
I’m just wondering how the percentages compare for “Federal workers” versus “Private sectors”. I would guess that they would be similar on “General jobs”, I.E. post office workers versus assembly plant workers. But I also suspect that “Congress” and politicians might have a higher level than say CEO’s. Purely guessing on my part, which is why I would like to see numbers on the subject.
~Matt
Oh of course. I see what you mean and I’m 100% with you. To me the federal gov’t has very few purposes like the national defense which includes border security, enforcement of contracts via courts, and guaranteeing the rights stated in the constitution. With most so-called services being delegated to a local level where individuals can better get a handle on what their leaders are doing and have a greater effect on how that money is spent. If that were the case then their would be no need for any of the previous theories.
If speaking from a federal level, I am not aware of the bill or right or constitution stating that people have a right to vote.
I’m not speaking about a “Right to vote” I’m talking about the right to have ones other rights protected which is a function of government and thereby effected by “The vote”.
Indirectly if you take away ones right to vote you take away a method of ensuring that your rights are protected.
~Matt