RoR: Forum

Ted -- I agree with you about the way that the major parties have controlled ballot access. But, I disagree about your proposal to squelch people's First Amendment right to free speech, which includes letting people know what party, if any, the person belongs to.

This is an important shorthand for many people who don't have lots of time -- it lets them quickly know if a candidate generally shares their values, or at least is willing to allege that, so they can then look at the detailed positions of the candidates most likely to get their vote, instead of wasting time painstakingly identifying and weeding out, say, Socialist Workers Party candidates when you're a radical minarchist. or other obviously bad ideological fits.

I don't think the parties should get any special consideration -- I think a primary ballot should list every candidate, with a party affiliation if they choose to list it, and then the top two vote-getters regardless of party would advance to the general election.

Post 61

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 11:26am

Voting Without Knowing?

Jim, don't people also have a "free speech right" to know what the race of their candidate is? Why shouldn't that be put on the ballot?

Think in terms of principles, Jim. No one is saying that a person cannot inform himself about the candidates outside the election booth. (If voters need not inform themselves, then why not have anyone old enough to pull a lever vote?) No one is saying that candidates can't advertise what they stand for. (Except perhaps McCain, Feingold, Bush, and the Supreme Court!) If you have not so informed yourself before you have gotten into the voting booth, why should taxpayer money be taken up printing the word "fascist" or "expropriator" next to the candidates' names? For the convenience of whom, and in the service of what? Indeed, why not take the names off the ballot, and just put the party names alone?

We do not elect factions. We elect people. Until the constitution is ammended to change this, only the names of people should appear on the ballot.

Think outside the box!

Post 62

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 4:12pm

"This is an important shorthand for many people who don't have lots of time -- it lets them quickly know if a candidate generally shares their values, or at least is willing to allege that, so they can then look at the detailed positions of the candidates most likely to get their vote, instead of wasting time painstakingly identifying and weeding out, say, Socialist Workers Party candidates when you're a radical minarchist. or other obviously bad ideological fits."

Furthermore, this is just plain false, and dangerous. This idea of time-saving means that you are going to let a label on a ballot stand in for your own independent rational judgment. Hitler did get elected, and he was pretty open about his priorities. What if he had gotten on the Libertarian ticket the way Lenora Fulani and Lyndon Larouche do? Would you, as a lazy but zealous Libertarian happily vote for them? Just look at Michael Bloomberg, nannystate Mayor of NYC. He got himself on the Republican ballot and elected by a lot of people who did not expect his first two acts in office to be the biggest tax increase ever and outlawing public smoking.

I reject this for constitutional reasons - there is no justification for the establishment of parties - and as a matter of personal hygiene. You don't know whom they've slept with.

[Yes, John - I didn't think explaining that the Nazi's got elected into the Reichstag as a minority and then Hitler was appointed by Hindenberg was necessary, but point conceded.]

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/01, 5:26pm)

Post 63

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 4:39pm

Ted -- so are you OK with people using nicknames instead of formal names on the ballot? If not, why not? If so, would you have an objection to someone who used a nickname along the lines of "Henshaw, Jim-LP"?

As far as costs go -- are you seriously proposing that "Keer, Ted" should pay less in candidate registration fees (yes, candidates need to pay fees to get on a ballot) than, say, "Kaboukian-Wassup, Man"? How convenient for you that your principles by sheer coincidence would result in a personal advantage to you should you run.

If you are seriously worried about the extra ink used to print "-R" or "-D" or "-LP" or "-G" on a ballot, I'm sure the political parties would grudgingly pony up the marginal cost of the extra ink for all their candidates.

And if someone was foolhardy enough to choose to use a nickname like "Wallace, George-white" on a ballot, they would deserve the electoral trouncing they got.

Post 64

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 4:45pm

Sorry for the nitpick Ted:

Hitler did get elected, and he was pretty open about his priorities

He actually wasn't elected. His party never got a majority of the vote. See the link below from R.J. Rummels;

What? Hitler Was Not Elected?

Post 65

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 5:18pm

Don't Point Your Vote At Me

Funny, Jim. If you want to have a judge change your name to "Tellmewhotovotefor Henshaw" go ahead.

Don't you understand the point I am making? The existence of parties is at best an historical accident. Parties are not ad hoc associations that exist to address one issue and then disband. They are self-perpetuating power factions that have subverted the system over the years to no end except their own maintained hold on power.

We don't have a coalition or parliamentary style of government. We don't vote for factions. We vote for individuals to hold specific offices. If a person cannot be bothered to find out whom it is he believes is best to hold a specific office, why do you or I want that uninformed person voting? Again, if an informed voter is of no importance then why have a voting age? The picture of Mugabe voting for himself was meant to suggest something to you. Voting is not an end in itself or even a necessity for good government - it is a means of selecting office holders.

The ballot should simply list candidates by their legal names. Don't ask me some facetious nonsense about the cost of printing Fracisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian D'Anconia on a ballot. In the off chance of candidates with identical names, then give their addresses. The candidates themselves can campaign for office if they wish people to know who they are and wish to win. (I think you've heard of freedom of speech?) Voters can register, show ID at the polls, and invest the effort into knowing whom they wish to support. If that effort is too much then they can stay home.

If you don't want to educate yourself, in a free society, that is your choice. Just as if you don't want to learn math, or how to read, I have no problem with this. If you don't want to know who your candidates are, fine with me. But why should the sole exception to this responsibility to educate yourself be in just that one circumstance where a person selects a proxy for him in exercising the use of force?

If you can't be bothered to know whom it is you want exercising the authority to use force, don't point your vote at me.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/01, 5:30pm)

Post 66

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 6:50pm

Ted -- let's stipulate, for the sake of exploring your argument, that ALL political parties are bad news and they should have no right to be listed on the ballot next to each candidate's name. (I would argue that, currently, the LP isn't such a beast, though if they got significant amounts of political power that would likely change, but we'll let that go for now.)

Now, what is your logic behind forcing people running for office to use only their full legal name, rather than nicknames? How are nicknames immoral? Why is printing "Keer, Theodore" on a ballot righeous but printing "Keer, Ted" immoral and wrong? If you're concerned about the cost of ink wouldn't allowing shorter (but not longer) nicknames be more economical? What if the shorter, more economical nickname was "Keer, Ted-LP"? Bad? Why?

Would you support making it illegal to petition the government for the right to change one's name so that, when printed on a ballot, the new names could be interpreted as indicating a political party affiliation? (New official first name becoming "Ted-LP", which would appear on a ballot as "Keer, Ted-LP").

And, do you have any philosophical objection to ending the confiscation of taxes to pay for elections, and replacing it with a system of selling advertising by candidates on ballots, allowing them to write a sentence or two about why people should vote for them in exchange for a hefty fee per letter? Would ending that portion of compulsory taxation be immoral? Would you prohibit them economizing on the advertising by printing just "R" or "D" or "LP"?

Post 67

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 7:19pm

Separation of Party and State

Jim, the nickname argument is simply a silly way to smuggle in what I have already ruled out, "party" affiliation on the ballot. Parties are no different from religions, so far as I can see, neither should be supported by or established by law. Private acts outside politics are fine. Parties can run their own primaries, just as the LP did in an exemplary way on CSPAN2 without government aid.

As for charging for votes and so on, such matters might be okay if we had a different constitutional system. I can see having a senate - one vote per state; a house, vote in proportion to taxes paid; and a plebiscite, one vote per citizen. But under our current system, publicly financed closed primaries should be ruled an unconstitutional establishment of, essentially, religion. As it is, there is no barrier to atheists or fundamentalists or Irish-Americans from forming a "caucus" and voting as a block in congress. Imagine the uproar if Catholics voted as a block - even though they would probably be quite moderate.

The same indignation should exist against people running as Democrats or Republicans. Such terms simply mean "one of us." There is no necessary connection in reality between party affiliation and any principle. Party platforms are for parties out of power. Once in power, no party wants to be bound by a platform. Even then, it is not a platform but an individual who holds office.

If we want a factional system, we can have a new constitution and allow people to vote for parties which then get seats in the Knesset according to party success at the polls. I don't happen to see this as an improvement over the intentions of the Federalists, do you?

Post 68

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 9:46pm

People get the government they deserve

We try to attain and preserve our most important goals by creating protective structures - each with a purpose to play (like the attempt to make courts a check against administrative or legislative abuses). But we, at the level of the people, have to understand this concept of structures - their purposes - and how to fix them when they are broken or get hijacked - and feel morally empowered to act.

When too few of the people understand this human mode of social survival, the structures become the weak point. Like a tribe that doesn't know how to fix machines left on their shores by some departed visitors, they end up with broken machines and they don't know how to fix them. It takes knowledge.

But it also takes honesty and courage - these come from a proper code of ethics deeply held in individual psyches and a fair amount of self-esteem.

In this thread we are talking about structures that are supposed to help play one of the supporting roles in maintaining a check on government abuse by giving people representation in the making of the rules they will live under. Well, the party system is broken, badly, and was hijacked long ago. Far too few of the populace know how to make the repair, far too few are honest and courageous enough to try the needed repairs. Hence, we will get the government we, as a people, deserve. Saying this isn't fair is a bit like crying out that the tribe 'deserves' to have working machines!

It really wouldn't matter if we had political parties or not, or a Knesset, or any other particular kind of structure - if the people understood its specific purpose (role to play) in securing the desired goal and acted with honesty and courage - Almost any structure would work because it would be tweaked and tuned and changed to bring greater and greater efficiency in securing its goal. Repairs would be effected and hijackers ejected.

Having said that, the attendent fallacy is to believe that any structure can be so cleverly engineered or properly tweaked as to protect a people lacking the repair skills, the honesty or the courage.

So, how do we change the people to deserve the kind of government we want?

Post 69

Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - 1:17pm