[ATrain]

Today is Election Day, time to vote. Hopefully the Dems lose control of Congress.

As for me, now that I live in the 6th instead of the 5th , I'm voting for Jeff Vanke. http://www.jeffvanke.com

Yes, I know he'll lose to Goodlatte, but Mr. Goodlatte has been part of the problem the past 10 or so years that has helped our country get into this mess.

However, more importantly, no more political ads for a few weeks.

[flamehunter]

Yes, vote early and vote often.

However, more importantly, no more political ads for a few weeks.

I agree. I actually am looking forward to only seeing Daniel L. Crandall and Kalfus & Nachman commercials during the 6 o'clock news.

[From the class of 09]

Yes, vote early and vote often.

However, more importantly, no more political ads for a few weeks.

I agree. I actually am looking forward to only seeing Daniel L. Crandall and Kalfus & Nachman commercials during the 6 o'clock news.

Since when did clerk of the court become such an important position? This year has to be some sort of record for money spent on that race.

[LUconn]

Also, be sure to tune into MSNBC this evening for all of your results coverage. It should be epically entertaining.

[LUconn]

also, what's your opinion on this "don't vote" article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magaz ... .html?_r=1

[ALUmnus]

Yes, vote early and vote often.

However, more importantly, no more political ads for a few weeks.

I agree. I actually am looking forward to only seeing Daniel L. Crandall and Kalfus & Nachman commercials during the 6 o'clock news.

Since when did clerk of the court become such an important position? This year has to be some sort of record for money spent on that race.

Since Rick Boyer found himself without a job and one of the candidates decided to announce the salary all over the radio in her adds. It pays pretty well.

I heard at least two candidates this year have their moms do radio ads on their behalf this year. That just seems weird to me.

[SumItUp]

also, what's your opinion on this "don't vote" article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magaz ... .html?_r=1

Send this article to every democrat/socialist/anti-capitalist/communist that you know.

[Liberty4Life]

also, what's your opinion on this "don't vote" article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magaz ... .html?_r=1

Frankly, we have too many people voting in this country. I think you should be able to pass a basic citizenship test before casting a ballot.

[From the class of 09]

also, what's your opinion on this "don't vote" article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magaz ... .html?_r=1

Frankly, we have too many people voting in this country. I think you should be able to pass a basic citizenship test before casting a ballot.

Instead of a citizenship test what about just looking at the tax return. If you have a net income tax you get to vote. If you got a net return on your federal income tax you don't get to vote. It would have to be an in or out basis you can't say well Bill Gates pays more so he should get more of a vote. If you are a net asset to the country you get to vote on how the country spends its money. If not you don't get to tell others how to spend their money.

[ATrain]

also, what's your opinion on this "don't vote" article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magaz ... .html?_r=1

Frankly, we have too many people voting in this country. I think you should be able to pass a basic citizenship test before casting a ballot.

Instead of a citizenship test what about just looking at the tax return. If you have a net income tax you get to vote. If you got a net return on your federal income tax you don't get to vote. It would have to be an in or out basis you can't say well Bill Gates pays more so he should get more of a vote. If you are a net asset to the country you get to vote on how the country spends its money. If not you don't get to tell others how to spend their money.

Umm, how about no.

[LUconn]

but you don't get to decide tax rates and tax breaks. So that's not really fair.

[Cider Jim]

I saw where one of my former students posted this on Facebook:

I did not vote today. I am merely a spectator in the Colosseum, sitting back with some potato chips to watch the carnage and laugh.

Now I feel guilty for requiring him to read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.

[SumItUp]

also, what's your opinion on this "don't vote" article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magaz ... .html?_r=1

Frankly, we have too many people voting in this country. I think you should be able to pass a basic citizenship test before casting a ballot.

I think you should have to be a citizen to vote.

[flamehunter]

[quote="ALUmnus]Since Rick Boyer found himself without a job and one of the candidates decided to announce the salary all over the radio in her adds. It pays pretty well.
[/quote]

Actually Rick has a job - he owns his own drywall business. But, you're right, it does pay well - ~$105K/yr.

[From the class of 09]

Frankly, we have too many people voting in this country. I think you should be able to pass a basic citizenship test before casting a ballot.

Instead of a citizenship test what about just looking at the tax return. If you have a net income tax you get to vote. If you got a net return on your federal income tax you don't get to vote. It would have to be an in or out basis you can't say well Bill Gates pays more so he should get more of a vote. If you are a net asset to the country you get to vote on how the country spends its money. If not you don't get to tell others how to spend their money.

Umm, how about no.

I know it sounds radical but think it all the way through. If you would rather vote then get a tax write off you can always send the IRS a donation for the difference (seriously you can).

Here is my problem with allowing someone who doesn't contribute to the system (which currently is over 45% of the country) a vote, they literally get to tell those who do contribute money to the system how to spend it. How is this fair? or for that matter efficient? Remember the idea is, in or out, no tiered setup if you have a net positve income tax you get to vote.

[Covert Hawk]

I say be patriotic and Don't Vote...

America was not founded as a democracy. It was a constitutional republic. The whole purpose of the Constitution, James Madison wrote in Federalist #10, was to control "the violence of faction," by which he meant democracy.

Imagine what a patriotic thrill you would receive if, in the next presidential election, a mere 10 percent of the electorate, instead of the usual 50 percent or so, voted. The unconstitutional regime in Washington would be de-legitimized. The upside is that it might just be possible that some politicians in Washington would get the message and start behaving more like a George Washington or Thomas Jefferson than a Tony Soprano or Vito Corleone (with apologies to all the distinguished Italian-Americans out there).

Read more...

[Liberty4Life]

also, what's your opinion on this "don't vote" article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magaz ... .html?_r=1

Frankly, we have too many people voting in this country. I think you should be able to pass a basic citizenship test before casting a ballot.

Instead of a citizenship test what about just looking at the tax return. If you have a net income tax you get to vote. If you got a net return on your federal income tax you don't get to vote. It would have to be an in or out basis you can't say well Bill Gates pays more so he should get more of a vote. If you are a net asset to the country you get to vote on how the country spends its money. If not you don't get to tell others how to spend their money.

Congratulations, you have successfully disenfranchised senior citizens and many people in the military. I hope you feel good about yourself.

[Liberty4Life]

I say be patriotic and Don't Vote...

America was not founded as a democracy. It was a constitutional republic. The whole purpose of the Constitution, James Madison wrote in Federalist #10, was to control "the violence of faction," by which he meant democracy.

Imagine what a patriotic thrill you would receive if, in the next presidential election, a mere 10 percent of the electorate, instead of the usual 50 percent or so, voted. The unconstitutional regime in Washington would be de-legitimized. The upside is that it might just be possible that some politicians in Washington would get the message and start behaving more like a George Washington or Thomas Jefferson than a Tony Soprano or Vito Corleone (with apologies to all the distinguished Italian-Americans out there).

Read more...

Do you honestly think that if only 10 percent of the electorate voted, that Washington would be delegitimized? I argue the opposite. If I'm a politician and ninety percent of my constituents aren't motivated to vote in an election, what's my incentive to NOT be corrupt?

[ToTheLeft]

Just went and voted. Don't expect to see anyone I voted for in office. Oh well, it's the idea that counts.

[From the class of 09]

Frankly, we have too many people voting in this country. I think you should be able to pass a basic citizenship test before casting a ballot.

Instead of a citizenship test what about just looking at the tax return. If you have a net income tax you get to vote. If you got a net return on your federal income tax you don't get to vote. It would have to be an in or out basis you can't say well Bill Gates pays more so he should get more of a vote. If you are a net asset to the country you get to vote on how the country spends its money. If not you don't get to tell others how to spend their money.

Congratulations, you have successfully disenfranchised senior citizens and many people in the military. I hope you feel good about yourself.

I'm not talking about SS benes actual federal income tax (SS taxes are actual taxable) If your active duty we could come up with something for you.

[Kricket]

Not a very well thought out idea 09.

[Kricket]

I have to add that I'm pumped to see the most conservative governor in my Wisconsin history (as long as I've been alive) get elected today. It's a great day.

[From the class of 09]

Not a very well thought out idea 09.

why?

[Kricket]

I think you'd be setting up class warfare like never before. Imagine making very little money and feeling like you have no say in how things are going because you have no vote. You can do one of two things, make more money and try to meet a tax bracket that you have no say over, or get mad at the system. I think the latter would happen more often, and for good reason.

I would argue people with more money already have a bigger say in politics than people with less money. Almost 100% of Congress was extremely wealthy before they got elected, meaning money influences who gets elected in the first place, no need to compound it by granting them a bigger vote.

Lastly, the people who are wealthy would use their vote to essentially guarantee that they stay that way, and their children stay that way, etc. Essentially it'd be a caste system which is exactly the opposite of what America was founded for. Everyone should have a fighting chance to be a success and when you take away that initial right to vote, you just may be taking away that fighting chance.

As others have stated, some people who pay no taxes have legitimate reasons for not doing so. They aren't required to pay. Sometimes that's through no fault of their own.

I really do understand where you're coming from on your idea, nobody likes people who are simply lazy, not pulling their weight deciding elections. However, under this current system, over 50% pays no national income taxes at all, and I don't think that's entirely their fault. I think the weight is just getting way too heavy.

Why not simply advocate passing an amendment stating that everyone pays a flat rate on the national income tax. If you make 2 million pay X%, if you make 20,000 pay X%. That way everyone pays taxes and nobody would want to raise taxes in the first place. Involvement in voting would for sure increase as half the people who never paid taxes now would be paying. Corruption would be greatly reduced as politicians would no longer be able to grant a tax break to certain corporations. The big guy and little guy would have the same fighting chance at success (my Father owns a small business that one day I may take over someday, I get sick of seeing big corporations getting a break when we forget about the little guy). The amount of paperwork and auditing in the government would be greatly reduced, thus leading to lower taxes in the first place. The size of the government would inevitably shrink as everyone would be united in one tax bracket, voting for less taxes.

Yes, this isn't a new idea, but I think it would work. The idea would be to unite voters and encourage voting (hopefully change voters mindset) rather than excluding some voters and creating class warfare (which is what the left loves). I hope that makes sense.

[Kricket]

Sorry for the long post everybody, I should know better than to get started on politics. I hope I don't come off as a jerk, because I probably agree you on most things 09', so that definitely wasn't my intention. Just really into political discussions.