I agree, my point is only that most of those who are approving of implementing laws to make it harder for others to vote probably already have an easier time voting than those they wish to effect. If “voter esteemation” became a thing, it would be the privileged who would (at least should) be most effected.
And I am trying to get an answer from Bricker as to whether or not I should, in his worldview, be allowed to vote, as my investment in the process is pretty damn minimal.
I also look forward to his answer, if he gives one. I predict:
He’ll say yes, you should be allowed to vote. But if this thread continues, or if he participates in a future thread on a related topic, he’ll eventually make another “esteem too lightly” reference, directed against persons unnamed. The vagueness serves his rhetorical purposes (or at least he believes it does), while specifics do not.
I’d quibble with some phrasing, but as a general rule I would say you’ve accurately captured the gravamen of my position – certainly more accurately than almost anyone else in this thread has done.
If I can ask a favor… I’d love to hear your opinion on why you were able to read the words I wrote and understand them, when others in this thread are baffled.
Can you respond to the question about the incredible ease of voting for many of us, especially those of us with relative affluence? It’s incredibly easy for me to vote, and much harder for a poor old person with no transportation. Should it be harder for me to vote?
Perhaps k9bfriender has a talent for crafting polite descriptions of nascent authoritarianism.
I pointed out earlier that virtually every single function in life is easier for a rich person.
In my opinion, there should be a baseline for voting difficulty, a high water mark, but not a low water mark. If you can afford to hire an attorney to register you, a chauffeur to drive you to the polling location, and six strong bearers to carry you in so you don’t have to walk, that’s your freedom to spend your resources.
No, that’s not it. He correctly summarized my position, a task you famously struggled with some time back.
So wait, you feel that said hypothetical voter is esteeming his or her vote highly enough? Even if they literally don’t even expend enough effort to physically walk into the polling location?
As I recall of that exchange, it went something along the lines of you repeatedly requesting that I summarize your position and me not being interested in doing so, then you claiming my lack of interest was proof of my lack of understanding, until I finally got around to giving a grudging 10-word summary that you accepted.
Your positions on issues have never been that complicated (nor have mine, in fairness) - I’m just disinclined to be polite about them. I seriously doubt that your views have ever hinged on some truly subtle nuance that I was incapable of grasping.
And I stand by my assessment of k9bfriender’s assessment. I’m frankly vaguely surprised you embraced it so readily, given that it references “manipulating the electorate for gain”. That’s been the contentious point since the beginning of the thread. It’s almost like I could call you a fascist (or indeed any number of things) but if I did so with sufficient politeness, I could get you to agree.
Heh, I see quite a bit of humour potential in this…
Well, they’re presumably paying for the chauffeured car and the litter-bearers, and if money equals speech, I guess it arguably also equals effort/esteem…
I dunno. Rather than create some fanciful plutocrat image, why not compare the American voting system to the Canadian one, where registration is pretty close to automatic (I check a box on my tax return to authorize sharing my info with Elections Canada) and voting is a breeze-in, breeze-out business, enabled with dozens of forms of acceptable identification, and no prevailing effort from any elected official to curtail some of those forms… it’s as close to effortless as in-person voting is likely to get, I presume. By the “insufficient esteem” argument, there should be a measurable difference in the effects (if any) between the two countries, yet I’ve never even seen a *suggested *metric to start the comparison.
So if “vote esteem” (however one defines and measures it) drops in the U.S. by 50%… what should we expect to see? Riots? Economic collapse? Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria?
I think if voter esteem drops too much, we end up with a government Bricker doesn’t approve of. I am still fuzzy on what should happen if a voter doesn’t esteem his or her vote highly enough. I think I suggested earlier that perhaps such a voter didn’t deserve to vote, and I was quickly corrected. He never said "deserve. " Which IS true. But what should happen to a vote cast lightly, with low or no esteem?
But i also remain curious about why a low income voter must esteem the right to vote, while a higher income voter need not?
EVERYTHING is easier for the rich, including meeting Bricker’s voter-esteem standards.
It’s rather like a religious concept, like arguing that sin invokes the wrath of God. Conveniently, life is full of natural disasters and car accidents and people getting cancer, so there’s no end of things one can say are signs of God’s wrath and no way to distinguish between what is and isn’t God’s wrath. Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans? Wrath of God on a sinful city! Analysis shows the more “sinful” neighborhoods were relatively undamaged? Well, that’s just God being mysterious, dont’cha know?
You answered your own question. You simply misunderstand the true nature of political power in America. In your naive romanticism, you forget that the axle of democracy is property rights, private property is the essence of civilization.
A rich man has more rights than another man because he owns more of America! Sure, this land is your land, this land is my land, but its more his land than both of us put together! Been that way forever, and will continue to be that way, because such values must be cherished, must be conserved. Property rights are first and foremost, the rest of them are negotiable, depending.
Of course people like the Koch’s and Adelson have more political power than you or I, they own it, we just live here.
Do YOU understand that they were aware, or at least had srong presumption, of the relevant racial voting correlations before they received any explicit report?
They didn’t do it, nobody saw them do it, you can’t prove a thing.
Why not? That’s already the way the legal system works. New Yorker had a story about a guy convicted of murder, despite good alibi witnesses who were never called to testify. The public defender’s detective budget was barely enough to send a guy out to interview these witnesses so the public defender didn’t bother.
Police and fire protection should be the same? If you can’t afford a limousine to go fetch some cops, you shouldn’t expect them to show up at your house in response to your call?
He knows:
Your understanding is correct:
You don’t exaclty make it easy. You never actually say what it is that you are for, but only really argue against the things you are against, so determining your position requires a bit of interpretation. As you may have noted on the hillary thread, I habitually interpret other’s statements in the best possible light, so the gaps that I fill in in my mental image of your philosophies is more charitable than most.
I start with the assumption that you are debating in good faith, and make you work hard to disabuse me of that notion. In this thread you have been at times cynical, snarky, and abrasive, and even soemteins, I believe, mistaken, but never dishonest. I did, until very recently, believe that you were rather callously indefferent to the plight of those who have not attained (thruough hard work or great luck) the position in life that you have. I see another possibilty now, in that you have philosophical differences in the best methods of self governance, that a non-invested electorate can create worse outcomes in the service of freedom, equality and prosperity than an engaged electorate would.
Even under that philosophy I still argue against the actions taken by those decried in this thread for two main (and countless minor) reasons.
The first is that those in charge should not be in charge of deciding who puts them in charge. This way, corruption and despotism occur. If it is easier to silence your opposition than to address their concerns and well being… I hope you can agree that this is not a path towards freedom, prosperity, and equality.
The second is that erecting bureaucratic barriers is the least efficient and most unequal method of establishing voter engagement. Making anyone have to navigate bureaucracy is cruel and unusual punishment. (Okay, hyperbolic joke, don’t nitpick please). But to be serious bureaucratic hurdles will most affect those already the most marginalized, those who most need to make their voices heard, this too, does not lead to a society that I wish to live in.
TL;DR An inclusive democracy may not be the best possible form of self governance, but an inclusive democracy is the best practical form of self governance we have tried to date.