An examination of delegate allocation

**Nuckle** · 03-13-12, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Would you also be ok with those that don't file an IRS return be exempt from military service?

Joining the military and voting IMO have nothing to do with another. Why would we tell someone without a job that they cant apply for a job. The military does not accept everyone but you already knew that.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

What is this supposed to select for?

Not sure I understand your question.

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-13-12, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Nuckle

Joining the military and voting IMO have nothing to do with another. Why would we tell someone without a job that they cant apply for a job. The military does not accept everyone but you already knew that.

Why should a government be allowed to lay my life on the line in the pursuit of it's foreign policy objectives and I not be allowed to have a say in how that government is run even if I didn't file an IRS tax return as an eighteen year old?

**deathgodusmc** · 03-13-12, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Why does not having a job preclude you from having a say in how this coutry is ran?

No gas money to get to the voting booth.

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-13-12, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

No gas money to get to the voting booth.

I edited my post to better reflect my point of view.

**AetheLove** · 03-13-12, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Nuckle

Not sure I understand your question.

I think the question was about which problem your voting proposal was trying to solve. How does your proposal select (or not select) voters in a way that's better than the current system?

I'll have a go.

On the one side, I was thinking: can't anyone file a tax return with the IRS? It's not like a W2 is your ticket to ride. You can fill in your name, SS, the particulars, and then a bunch of zeros. If you mail it to them (or e-file it), they'll process it.

person: I earned zero dollars. I've attached all the relevant forms and schedules, there are a total of none. Looks like I don't owe you anything, and you don't owe me anything.

IRS: Ok, good to go!

On the other side, seems like the tax-return rule excludes some people you might want to include. Suppose two people. Spouses. Kids. One doesn't have an outside job, just the one that's full-time but you don't get paid for - running the household and taking care of the family. It's possible that the stay-at-home spouse won't have to file, but I'm pretty sure they'll feel entitled to vote.

Second case: someone who is trying to break into a career that traditionally includes a few years of slavery - what they call an "internship". You could spend an entire year (or more) working your ass off for no money simply because that's what's required to get your first paying job. You might even be a part-time student the whole time. You'd deny this person the right to vote?

I think your rule doesn't work very well.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**Nuckle** · 03-13-12, 03:46 PM

It will never happen so it is not relevant.

As we increase the number of citizens that are living off the system and they continue to vote we will see the government assistance programs increase through the election of leaders that promise those things to get those votes. It is a downward spiral that has no end.

If you have gone more than a year without paying into the system or being a part of the device to pay into the system then why should you have say as to how the money is spent. That is really what it all comes down to.

All that said, I do not think anyone that makes less than 30k should have any tax liability but I also disagree with many of the assistance programs that are in place now.

It is pretty simple, I want the people that can work to be working. Where we differ is that I think many that have been on the take for a year or more are lazy and you think they are misfortune.

Drive by a homeless shelter or soup kitchen, does it not seem odd that the place is so fucking dirty and run down? With all those people unemployed you would think they could clean the place up, cut the grass, paint etc. Guess they are all out looking for jobs and too busy.

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-13-12, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Nuckle

It will never happen so it is not relevant.

Nice tap out.

Drive by a homeless shelter or soup kitchen, does it not seem odd that the place is so fucking dirty and run down? With all those people unemployed you would think they could clean the place up, cut the grass, paint etc. Guess they are all out looking for jobs and too busy.

I agree with you here. After they're done chowing down, firing up that lawnmower and giving it a go wouldn't do them any harm.

**Nuckle** · 03-13-12, 04:19 PM

Not a tap out at all, just reality. I have many opinions in which some will agree and some will not. Nothing more or nothing less.

Our think our whole system is fucked and both sides of the fence are to blame.

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-13-12, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Nuckle

Not a tap out at all, just reality. I have many opinions in which some will agree and some will not. Nothing more or nothing less.

Our think our whole system is fucked and both sides of the fence are to blame.

I agree, and in all fairness, you also stated that up front, so not a tap out at all.

**Alundil** · 03-13-12, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Popular vote would give everyone the same voice. No more undue weight given to Wyoming in a Presidential election.

Was this what you meant to say? Does Wyoming really have that much sway under the electoral system? Real question as I've not gone digging yet. I think that they only have a few electoral votes.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

It would increase voter turnout because now your vote might mean something if you live in a "safe" state. It would also reflect the will of the people.

Agreed on this point.

What is your definition of a "safe" state?

Originally Posted by Fovezer

It would also help to nationalize voting standards.

Standard voting processes and procedures would be fantastic.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

That would drastically limit the GOP from trying to institute voter suppression bills because it would be much more difficult to change the national voting standards. Right now, it's easier for them to get away with it on a state-by-state case.

Which voter suppression bills? Clue me in.

*I, too, agree that the system as it stands is a joke. Abject and pathetic.