dedicated to the discussion of the chinese internal martial arts of xingyiquan, baguazhang, taijiquan, related arts, and anything else best discussed over a bottle of rum
I read Heinlein's book recently and it's an interesting topic. In that story, the franchise is earned only by service, regardless of any identity factors. I can't think how it's workable after the vote's already been granted to everyone.
I can't think how it's workable after the vote's already been granted to everyone.
Mandatory service as a requirement would be fine. Unfortunately, people who have served honorably have already been denied the right to vote, and murdered for encouraging voting. So it's not a guarantee by any means. The vote has never been granted to everyone, and it can be taken away easily.
Hey, Iinm, Switzerland had a law that only people who served could vote. But, every male from 18 to 45 had to serve. So, it wasn't until the 70s that women got the right to vote. The reason why it happened was that Switzerland also has a law that it only takes 2000 (? a small number) of votes to order a national referendum.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
A popular vote would be fairer, and more difficult to "play" the system.
- Everyone's vote would be equal. - With a popular vote, it would not even matter in which state people voted.
Simplification: If your vote counts as 1 vote, but Harry's vote counts as 2 (because his state has less people), then each vote is not equal.
If the US ever changes to a popular vote (I doubt it, at least within this century), I wonder if people would say about a losing candidate, "But he would have won if it was an electoral college vote!" Sounds a bit silly.
Unconscious ignorance and bias is another, deeper issue.
Basically, one half of America loving Trump, and another half of America hating him, is a very worrying state.
If your company has 10 senior managers, and 5 of them evaluate you as awesome, while another 5 evaluate you as terrible, it is the same sort of problem. Basically, one then can only guess that 5, or 10, have a serious inability to think objectively or without bias.
More simply, if two people buy bananas at the supermarket, both should be able to judge the banana's quality without much difference. It should be the same with judging people.
It was only 2012, but that was like the prescient, Texas equivalent of AOC primarying her four-term opponent last year. I don't know if she's dedicated enough to the green deal to handle snakes, tho.
Word on the hill in DC is that the Dems are going to redistrict her out after the 2020 census. NY is slated to lose a few more seats due to it's collapsing population.
I'm sure she'll live a high value life as a lecturer on the rich leftist speaking tour after that.
First rule of politics, never piss off the power brokers unless you hold "the one ring"...
Interesting theory popped up over the weekend claiming AOC is actual puppet, perhaps even moreso than Bush, Jr.
I really like it when she's on the money, like with Amazon, or shifting priorities from excessive military spending to health care and infrastructure, but the Bronx Bomberette's extreme variation between her less sensical statements, her more sensical, and her politically radical tweets and instragram livestreams did seem a bit odd to me. A young woman like that questioning the morality of having children seems out of place. We'll see.
Beware, this vid has waaayy too many cuts and shifts in camera perspective for just listening to a political pundit. Almost as irritating as Philly De Franco's constantly flailing hands. Also 23 minutes long, so pull up a chair if you're going the whole way.