Weighting Rural Votes?/Election Reform

[Ors Might]

True but that’s in the best case scenario. Coups are always an option.

Free and fair elections evidently aren’t inherently good if they can lead to something awful.

Coups are not the solution.

They seem to be pretty effective in ousting unwanted governments. But even if they aren’t the solution, the mere threat of political violence can be a very effective tool. Take the Civil Rights movement as an example. MLK had great ideals but I find it unlikely that the state and federal government would have agreed if they weren’t afraid of those like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.

Sometimes a little extremism is necessary.

[San Lumen]

Coups are not the solution.

They seem to be pretty effective in ousting unwanted governments. But even if they aren’t the solution, the mere threat of political violence can be a very effective tool. Take the Civil Rights movement as an example. MLK had great ideals but I find it unlikely that the state and federal government would have agreed if they weren’t afraid of those like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.

Sometimes a little extremism is necessary.

Malcom X and the Black Panthers were not going to orchestrate a coup or carry out other horrible things.

[Ors Might]

They seem to be pretty effective in ousting unwanted governments. But even if they aren’t the solution, the mere threat of political violence can be a very effective tool. Take the Civil Rights movement as an example. MLK had great ideals but I find it unlikely that the state and federal government would have agreed if they weren’t afraid of those like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.

Sometimes a little extremism is necessary.

Malcom X and the Black Panthers were not going to orchestrate a coup or carry out other horrible things.

Didn’t say they would. But the fear of political violence certainly helped restore and protect the rights of minorities.

[San Lumen]

Malcom X and the Black Panthers were not going to orchestrate a coup or carry out other horrible things.

Didn’t say they would. But the fear of political violence certainly helped restore and protect the rights of minorities.

Ok and what rights are you being deprived of?

[Ors Might]

Didn’t say they would. But the fear of political violence certainly helped restore and protect the rights of minorities.

Ok and what rights are you being deprived of?

Me personally? None. But others, their rights are being restricted if not outright deprived.

[San Lumen]

Ok and what rights are you being deprived of?

Me personally? None. But others, their rights are being restricted if not outright deprived.

give an example

[Ors Might]

Me personally? None. But others, their rights are being restricted if not outright deprived.

give an example

There’s the voter I.D laws that de facto prevent more poverty stricken communities from having a voice. Also, while I’m not sure I would label this as abuse and what not, I would count preventing adults from putting substances in their bodies on their own time as infringing upon their rights. And if I’m not mistaken, the right to bear arms is highly restricted in your neck of the woods.

[Telconi]

True but that’s in the best case scenario. Coups are always an option.

Free and fair elections evidently aren’t inherently good if they can lead to something awful.

Coups are not the solution.

They can be *A* solution.

[San Lumen]

give an example

There’s the voter I.D laws that de facto prevent more poverty stricken communities from having a voice. Also, while I’m not sure I would label this as abuse and what not, I would count preventing adults from putting substances in their bodies on their own time as infringing upon their rights. And if I’m not mistaken, the right to bear arms is highly restricted in your neck of the woods.

Voter ID laws should be declared unconstitutional as in person voter fraud does not occur. The 2nd amendment does not give you a right to any and all firearms. People who supported stronger gun laws were elected to the State Senate last year and will pass laws as such.

[Ghost Land]

There’s the voter I.D laws that de facto prevent more poverty stricken communities from having a voice. Also, while I’m not sure I would label this as abuse and what not, I would count preventing adults from putting substances in their bodies on their own time as infringing upon their rights. And if I’m not mistaken, the right to bear arms is highly restricted in your neck of the woods.

Voter ID laws should be declared unconstitutional as in person voter fraud does not occur. The 2nd amendment does not give you a right to any and all firearms. People who supported stronger gun laws were elected to the State Senate last year and will pass laws as such.

Where are you getting that from this?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Restriction of the carrying (not necessarily ownership) of "dangerous and unusual weapons" is permitted according to a quick Wikipedia search, but "dangerous and unusual" is vaguely defined at best.

May I also ask why you're so hung up on the idea of a representative democracy picked by often urban-dominated mob rule anyway? Would you be opposed to a benevolent autocracy that agreed with all of your views purely on the grounds that it's autocratic?

Edit2: Especially after seeing the post below this one, let it be stated for the record that I agree with the positions Telconi has expressed thus far in this thread.

[Telconi]

There’s the voter I.D laws that de facto prevent more poverty stricken communities from having a voice. Also, while I’m not sure I would label this as abuse and what not, I would count preventing adults from putting substances in their bodies on their own time as infringing upon their rights. And if I’m not mistaken, the right to bear arms is highly restricted in your neck of the woods.

Voter ID laws should be declared unconstitutional as in person voter fraud does not occur. The 2nd amendment does not give you a right to any and all firearms. People who supported stronger gun laws were elected to the State Senate last year and will pass laws as such.

So should gun bans.

It says "arms" and gives no qualifier.

And that's vile, disgusting, and evil. And the people who do that don't deserve political power.

[Ors Might]

There’s the voter I.D laws that de facto prevent more poverty stricken communities from having a voice. Also, while I’m not sure I would label this as abuse and what not, I would count preventing adults from putting substances in their bodies on their own time as infringing upon their rights. And if I’m not mistaken, the right to bear arms is highly restricted in your neck of the woods.

Voter ID laws should be declared unconstitutional as in person voter fraud does not occur. The 2nd amendment does not give you a right to any and all firearms. People who supported stronger gun laws were elected to the State Senate last year and will pass laws as such.

It plainly says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed though. And given the context of “well regulated” meaning kept in working order, one could argue that it implicitly requires citizens to have access to any and all firearms.

[Telconi]

Voter ID laws should be declared unconstitutional as in person voter fraud does not occur. The 2nd amendment does not give you a right to any and all firearms. People who supported stronger gun laws were elected to the State Senate last year and will pass laws as such.

It plainly says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed though. And given the context of “well regulated” meaning kept in working order, one could argue that it implicitly requires citizens to have access to any and all firearms.

In all fairness, the legal interpretation is functionally irrelevant.

[Ors Might]

It plainly says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed though. And given the context of “well regulated” meaning kept in working order, one could argue that it implicitly requires citizens to have access to any and all firearms.

In all fairness, the legal interpretation is functionally irrelevant.

Yeah but if they’re gonna bring up “well regulated militia” all the time, we might as well bring it up first and dominate that aspect of the debate.

[Telconi]

In all fairness, the legal interpretation is functionally irrelevant.

Yeah but if they’re gonna bring up “well regulated militia” all the time, we might as well bring it up first and dominate that aspect of the debate.

But the functional distinction is not the legality. Or illegality of the policy, but rather the morality, or immorality of it.

[Northern Davincia]

There’s the voter I.D laws that de facto prevent more poverty stricken communities from having a voice. Also, while I’m not sure I would label this as abuse and what not, I would count preventing adults from putting substances in their bodies on their own time as infringing upon their rights. And if I’m not mistaken, the right to bear arms is highly restricted in your neck of the woods.

Voter ID laws should be declared unconstitutional as in person voter fraud does not occur. The 2nd amendment does not give you a right to any and all firearms. People who supported stronger gun laws were elected to the State Senate last year and will pass laws as such.

I doubt you've so much as read the constitution.

[Ors Might]

Yeah but if they’re gonna bring up “well regulated militia” all the time, we might as well bring it up first and dominate that aspect of the debate.

But the functional distinction is not the legality. Or illegality of the policy, but rather the morality, or immorality of it.

It’s easier to get people to debate the morality when you get them to face the fact that their legal arguments are horseshit, at least in my experience.

[Thermodolia]

Healthcare and labor laws span the state and are therefore state issues, elections are already handled by the county, agriculture makes more sense to be devolved to rural counties. I’m going to guess you hate federalism? Because we currently have a patchwork of laws in the US.

The county board of elections answers to the state board of elections. Some issues are local some are not.

Maybe in the People’s Centralized Republic of New York. But down here in freedomstan the Secretary of State Elections Office just certifies the election and a few other things. Pretty much everything else is handled by the county board of elections.

Unless you want another Dust Bowl you need some sort of uniform agriculture law.

For the last time the Dust Bowl happened because of a major drought. The USDA was created 40 years before the dust bowl was ever a thing

[San Lumen]

The county board of elections answers to the state board of elections. Some issues are local some are not.

Maybe in the People’s Centralized Republic of New York. But down here in freedomstan the Secretary of State Elections Office just certifies the election and a few other things. Pretty much everything else is handled by the county board of elections.

Unless you want another Dust Bowl you need some sort of uniform agriculture law.

For the last time the Dust Bowl happened because of a major drought. The USDA was created 40 years before the dust bowl was ever a thing

I could be mistaken. Im not entirely sure what the state board of elections does other than reviewing petitions for state candidates and certifying elections but unlike in your state we do not elect a Secretary of State is appointed by the governor. The position has nothing to do with elections

The drought was a factor but it was also exacerbated by lazy farming practices and lack of regulation

[Thermodolia]

Maybe in the People’s Centralized Republic of New York. But down here in freedomstan the Secretary of State Elections Office just certifies the election and a few other things. Pretty much everything else is handled by the county board of elections.


For the last time the Dust Bowl happened because of a major drought. The USDA was created 40 years before the dust bowl was ever a thing

I could be mistaken. Im not entirely sure what the state board of elections does other than reviewing petitions for state candidates and certifying elections but unlike in your state we do not elect a Secretary of State is appointed by the governor. The position has nothing to do with elections

The drought was a factor but it was also exacerbated by lazy farming practices and lack of regulation

The drought was a major factor, in addition to this little thing known as the Great Depression, there were also massive dust storms. It wasn’t lazy farming practices and no regulation, regulations where already in place, it was the fact that we didn’t know what we do know.

[San Lumen]

I could be mistaken. Im not entirely sure what the state board of elections does other than reviewing petitions for state candidates and certifying elections but unlike in your state we do not elect a Secretary of State is appointed by the governor. The position has nothing to do with elections

The drought was a factor but it was also exacerbated by lazy farming practices and lack of regulation

The drought was a major factor, in addition to this little thing known as the Great Depression, there were also massive dust storms. It wasn’t lazy farming practices and no regulation, regulations where already in place, it was the fact that we didn’t know what we do know.

The depression was a factor as well but if farmers had used sustainable farming and had there been regulations it might not have been as bad as it was

[Thermodolia]

The drought was a major factor, in addition to this little thing known as the Great Depression, there were also massive dust storms. It wasn’t lazy farming practices and no regulation, regulations where already in place, it was the fact that we didn’t know what we do know.

The depression was a factor as well but if farmers had used sustainable farming and had there been regulations it might not have been as bad as it was

Did you read anything I posted?

We didn’t have the scientific knowledge we do know back before the dust bowl began. You can’t fault the farmers for not knowing any better when hardly anyone knew better. And regulations had nothing to do with it, good or bad.

[San Lumen]

The depression was a factor as well but if farmers had used sustainable farming and had there been regulations it might not have been as bad as it was

Did you read anything I posted?

We didn’t have the scientific knowledge we do know back before the dust bowl began. You can’t fault the farmers for not knowing any better when hardly anyone knew better. And regulations had nothing to do with it, good or bad.

'Ok but this is getting off topic. Back to elections New York finally updated its Byzantine election law yesterday. We will now have state and federal primaries on the same day, early voting, voter registration transfers plus they also began the process for a constitutional amendment to allow no excuse absentee voting and same day voter registration

[San Lumen]

I would have that this would get more discussion considering how passionate people are about this.

[Ghost Land]

I would have that this would get more discussion considering how passionate people are about this.

It did get quite a bit of discussion, much of it being rather heated, but then the thread died a natural death. Would you like people to continue debating this topic to no end?

And for the record, my position is that the whole notion of representative "democracy" is ridiculous in and of itself. To simplify things, you have a few candidates who are trying to sell themselves to the voters, by making promises they have no intent of keeping and oftentimes by slandering the other candidate. Once the guy gets in, he is under no obligation to fulfill his campaign promises, as now he is in power and he can do as he wishes, and he has to contend with another equally crooked body known as Congress, who arguably has even more collective power than the president. Congress has no limit as to the number of terms someone can serve, so in many cases we have the same corrupt person stinking up their place in the Senate or House of Representatives (silly name, by the way, as the government clearly doesn't represent anyone other than itself) for literally several decades, staying in office well into old age.

And you're telling me this highly corrupt and screwed-up system is preferable to a benevolent autocrat who takes his time to figure out what the people want and what is best for the country as a whole, holding frequent referendums and using their results to influence his decisions?