[FoRK] Newsroom score: American Taliban

Damien Morton dmorton at bitfurnace.com
Wed Aug 29 13:20:29 PDT 2012


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Marty Halvorson <marty at halvorson.us> wrote:
> SDW wrote:
> "will a more accurate vote (poll of the enfranchised) be accomplished with
> or without the new voter ID laws?"
>
> With voter ID.  As anyone knows, most voters don't have a clue about who or
> what they're voting for.  If a voter ID is required those who want to cast a
> reasoned vote will get an ID.  Those who don't, won't.


Nice undercurrent of elitism there. Anyone unable to get a Voter ID is
too dumb to vote anyway.

Its worth reposting this

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/19/rundle-you-call-this-democracy-its-time-to-start-again/#comment-92222

"By maximizing the number of electors to whom candidates must present
their messages, universal suffrage maximizes the cost of successful
candidacy and therefore maximizes the influence of money on the
selection of our legislators."

"universal suffrage MINIMIZES the influence of each voter on the
outcome, and thereby makes it rational to be ignorant. If you are one
of (say) 100,000 voters in one of 100 electorates, your probability of
influencing the outcome is so small that it is not rational to invest
any time to become a well-informed voter."

"If we want democracy instead of plutocracy, we must eliminate the
cost of taking the message to the voters. How? By bringing the voters
to the message! For each election, in each electorate, invite a random
sample of the enrolled voters to gather in one place (or one video
conference). Pay them generously for their time, so that they can
easily accept the invitation. Let them listen to the candidates and
cross-examine the candidates over a period of several days. Then let
them vote as an electoral college — choosing the candidate(s) that the
entire enrolled electorate would have chosen if it had heard the same
arguments."



More information about the FoRK mailing list