Apparently breaking down in the media gets you everywhere you want to be. If a percentage of those women voted out of pity for her staged breakdown I would be highly dissapointed. This is a good reason the the popular vote should not decide the presidency.
And this is exactly why the founding fathers were smarter than people given them credit for in so many ways. The electoral college is not bound to vote with the popular vote. In fact, for a long time there was no popular vote for president (Or Senators, which we should go back to) at all. The only thing the popular vote decides is which party sends delegates to the Electoral College. If we removed the popular vote from presidential elections we'd probably have better presidents in office.Originally Posted by Jecht
Sadly, there will always be a significant amount of votes that are determined by factors such as that or the fact that Clinton is female/Obama is black.
To the other points in this thread: Yes, we are allowed to vote, if you think poor people should not vote then contact your state legislature and ask them to impose an income floor on voting registration. They will proceed to laugh at you, because the largest percentage of voters are those who are in their retirement years and have a small fixed income. These people are not "poor", despite their low income, they make up one of the highest net-worth age-groups in the united states. Why? They own their home, their car, have no credit card debt, go on cruises every summer, have a pension, social security, a retirement fund, a nest egg, a grandkids college fund, and still have spending cash to spoil themselves more often than not. However, they are "poor" people who are voting, many of whom don't have college degrees and worked in labor jobs.
As for the "People on Welfare should not be allowed to vote," then you have to define what exactly you mean by it. Should they not be allowed to vote in local elections that still have a bearing on their life? Or just federal elections to prevent them from voting themselves a "raise"? Either way, it's been repeatedly proven that people who are too lazy or ignorant to realize that welfare is supposed to be temporary aid and not the government paying you to sit on your ass and do nothing for months aren't terribly likely to vote anyways. Don't forget that huge welfare reforms were enacted not that long ago, and by a president that few people expected it from.
I feel there doesn't need to be any kind of voter litmus test, there needs to be better methods for informing voters of the issues at hand, more voter involvement through non-binding referendums over key issues and an explanation to the people of america that they don't elect the President, and shouldn't be allowed to either. The biggest thing we need to stop right now is this idea of "pork-barrel" or "vote-buy" spending in congress. We also need to teach the voters that paying lower taxes means allowing the government to NOT perform some services. We should take a few steps closer to the enumerated powers, and let states go back to running the show. Federal government has grown out of proportion with it's constitutional framework.
P.S.: Fairtax (IE, removal of the easily cheatable income tax system replaced with a nationwide sales tax system that would be revenue neutral for the government) would cause rich people to be taxed HIGHER than poor people (Poor people typically buy used goods, which would not be taxed, and also lower cost goods, which would have less tax cost because of the lower overall cost, add in the sales-tax prebate given to all families equivalent to the poverty line income in tax and you have a system that removes tax burden from the lowest income families entirely, plus Rich people usually buy new products, and the new products they buy are often expensive, and thus have a higher, though proportional, tax load.) ANY form of Income tax will be ineffective at taxing the absolute richest people in America, because the vast majority of them don't "make" any money at all. They recieve an income usually without tax through trusts, funds, and other seperate means that evade tax collection through the thousands of legal loopholes left in the system. A sales tax system becomes significantly harder to "evade" when every product you're buying has the tax imbedded in it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote