Voting

[MeneerDijk]

http://groenekhmer.nl/images/stempas.jpg

Today i received my voting card in the mail, it looks similar to the one above. on the 22nd of november the Dutch will have to elect a new parliament. 150 seats will have to be divided to represent the opinion of the Dutch people.

I will vote for the same party as i did last year, I took an online test to see wich party best reflected my opinion, and i read their party programme. Allthough this party won't be the most influential i still feel i should vote. Even though it feels kind of futile. At least i tried my best to get a governement that takes the countries problems head-on instead of bickering over unimportant stuff. Like wether or not a game-show should remain on tv or not, or if a contestant in a 'big-brother' like tv-show should be allowed to compete in it :bored:

As i gather, the Americans will have to elect a new house of represantatives (among others) pretty soon. If i understand the situation correctly, a democratic majority means that the president and the house of representatives might dead-lock eachother, wich means there might be no resolution on important issues for at least two years until the presedential elections.

What i want to know is: Do i understand the situation correctly? And if this is correct, does it influence your vote? Like normally you'd vote democrat, but to prevernt a dead-lock you'll vote republican? Do you even vote? What will be the political future according to you?

[Candyvan Stan]

Not really related, but I really feel the Dutch system is stupid - as nothing ever changes because parties with fairly different ideologies are pretty much always forced to form coalitions with each other.

That said, I wouldn't want the American system either. A system where (and I may be oversimplifying it a bit) there are only two major parties, and you don't vote directly for the parties - but you vote for a representative to vote for you.

[Mastiker]

That said, I wouldn't want the American system either. A system where (and I may be oversimplifying it a bit) there are only two major parties, and you don't vote directly for the parties - but you vote for a representative to vote for you.

Boo electoral colleges! D:

It's really quite weird how a president can lose a popularity vote, and still become president :watson: If a president "wins" California, Texas, Flordia, and like... three other states, bam, they win the election. Even if voter turnout is at it's maximum, and the majority vote says that the president isn't popular, he can still win if the most populated states are on his side. Makes voting seem rather... pointless. That would probably explain the low voter turnouts...

I'm hoping people do vote though. Not for politicians, but for politics. There was a proposition in our town to help teachers, and the only reason I know that is because my mom's a teacher. The political signs said "vote yes on propostion such and such!" but they didn't say why. Made me feel silly. I mean, what if I had missed out on the meeting where they explained all of these to me? And, on top of that, the majority of voters don't really understand laws anyways unless they deciphered or summarized. Voting, at least in my community, has turned into "let's do what the signs say, because the signs are pretty" D:

Larry Friscolli is running for office in my state, town, whatever. I can't tell which one because I can't read the sign in my neighbor's yard clear enough. It's a very nice sign, I've seen them in the area. I don't know who Larry Friscolli is, or what his politics are. Chances are, a lot of people don't. If I was voting, I'd probably vote for him. Why? Because I recognize the name from my neighbor's yard. I feel that that's how a lot of people are voting nowadays... and, it's just pointless to vote that completely ignorant.

Before someone gets me wrong, I'm not saying that all voters are like this; I'm saying that a lot of people in my community are like this... and I'm sure elsewhere too.

[Roxie]

If i understand the situation correctly, a democratic majority means that the president and the house of representatives might dead-lock eachother, wich means there might be no resolution on important issues for at least two years until the presedential elections.

What i want to know is: Do i understand the situation correctly? And if this is correct, does it influence your vote? Like normally you'd vote democrat, but to prevernt a dead-lock you'll vote republican? Do you even vote? What will be the political future according to you?

I think you're talking about veto power and how it works between President and Congress? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#United_States

[Soli]

Our government is stupid. >=( I'm in government for history this semester, and I don't understand anything. They made it too confusing!

When I'm 18, I'll probably vote though. Right now at least, I don't understand anything about politics and stuff, and don't really care to. :P

[Roxie]

The word "veto" does not appear in the United States Constitution. Per U.S. Const., Article I, Section 7 all legislation passed by both houses of Congress must be presented to the President. This presentation is in the President's capacity as head of state.

If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it. If he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days (excluding Sundays) to the house of Congress in which it originated. The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation.

If the Congress passes the bill by a 2/3 majority in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Our system in America only works for us because we have a special kind of democracy.

We've got state and federal government and I know of no other country that has it.

Technically the Electorial College system works because if you vote for the represenitive then you are voting, technically, for a hard Democrat or Republican. They will vote that way no matter what.

There is only 4 cases in the history of the US where popular vote didn't win.
That I know of anyway.

It works for us and people are pissed that we don't get direct voting, but think about our system.

It will take time to completely fix it. If we go by plurality then that f's our system up.

[Angelyne]

Even if the Democrats manage to gain some seats in this election, I'm under the impression that it still won't be enough to give them the majority in Congress, and therefore, deadlocks aren't much of an issue.

Besides, I don't consider a deadlock to be a bad thing at this point in time. If it stops Congress from making more terrible decisions, good. It's not like Congress has done anything productive in the past year or two besides finding new and exciting ways to increase our budget deficit and take away legal rights. Although, I'm giving the Democrats far more credit than they deserve in believing that they'll actually attempt to block Republican legislation.

I will be voting for a third party candidate in the upcoming election. The incumbent Senator (Republican) is absolutely terrible, but the main opponent is just as bad (Democrat). Neither one deserves my vote.

--

And now for a rant about voter registration: My voter registration listed me at an old address, so I needed to change this information before the Oct. 10th deadline. I sent out a change of address form in early August. No response. Worried that I had not received a response, I sent out another form at the beginning of October. Still no response.

Since elections are very close, I called up the county voter's office in the afternoon around 3 pm. Even though the prerecorded message on the phone said that they were open until 5 pm, the office was closed! I tried calling repeatedly until 5 pm and nothing!

I'm going to try again next week, but the whole situation is frustrating. No wonder people don't vote. You need to have a serious interest in voting in order to have the patience to get through this level of bureaucracy. People try so hard to get people to vote, but then the government makes it a huge pain in the ass just to do something as simple as change an address.

[setrict]

What i want to know is: Do i understand the situation correctly? And if this is correct, does it influence your vote? Like normally you'd vote democrat, but to prevernt a dead-lock you'll vote republican?
Note quite in my case. I used to vote for damage control. I don't think progress is a mandate of goverment. I think goverment is there to facilitate progress, not make it. The idea of congress getting nothing much done for a few years appeals to me. I firmly believe that when people say "but we should be working toward progress" what they really mean is "you should be doing what I'm doing". I don't want progress from my government, so I voted in a method that encouraged deadlock.

I won't be doing that this election, because I feel like the republicans are trying to force me to eat a slice of ham, democrats are pushing bacon, and I'm just a jewish vegetarian looking for a good cup of coffee. The two big parties are just offering a different piece of the same pork. (Ok, I'm not really jewish and I love bacon, but that's not the point).

I'll be ignoring the major parties entirely this november, and unless a candidate really makes a good impression on me I'll be voting against the incumbent and for a third party.

[gar-ry]

We've got state and federal government and I know of no other country that has it.


Australia has both, as well as local governments

Our system has flaws, such as still having the Queen involved in the Constiution, and no Bill of Rights. However, I think the abiliy for regular people to have a say in our system is pretty good compared to other countries.

[Soli]

The word "veto" does not appear in the United States Constitution. Per U.S. Const., Article I, Section 7 all legislation passed by both houses of Congress must be presented to the President. This presentation is in the President's capacity as head of state.

If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it. If he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days (excluding Sundays) to the house of Congress in which it originated. The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation.

If the Congress passes the bill by a 2/3 majority in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it.

I know what you're talking about! :D That's a pocket veto. If the president doesn't sign a bill within 10 days (and congress isn't in session) then the bill is vetoed. But if Congress is in session then they can pass it themselves.

(It's so cool when I actually understand something in the GD well. :))

[PopCulturePooka]

Australia has both, as well as local governments

Our system has flaws, such as still having the Queen involved in the Constiution, and no Bill of Rights. However, I think the abiliy for regular people to have a say in our system is pretty good compared to other countries.
Although King Johnny the Short and Delusional seems to have a hard on for eliminating state governments. Next target: Education.

TBH, I like voting, I dunno why people here get so bothered about having too.

(I also like taunting Liberal, National, One Nation and Family First volunteers outside polling booths)

[Josh]

As i gather, the Americans will have to elect a new house of represantatives (among others) pretty soon. If i understand the situation correctly, a democratic majority means that the president and the house of representatives might dead-lock eachother, wich means there might be no resolution on important issues for at least two years until the presedential elections.

What i want to know is: Do i understand the situation correctly? And if this is correct, does it influence your vote? Like normally you'd vote democrat, but to prevernt a dead-lock you'll vote republican? Do you even vote? What will be the political future according to you?

Yeah, you are more or less correct. If the Democrats get a majority in either the senate or the house things will be a lot tougher for President Bush to work through. If its a good idea, it won't be a problem. Its the dumbass ideas that will get deadlocked(ok, maybe some good ones too, bipartisanship is weak right now in the US govt). I mean, the parties don't like working together on a lot of stuff but they are all democrats (with a small d) and believe in the system.

This will be the first year I vote and I plan on going Democratic myself, I mean, I can see points from both sides, but like a good number of Americans, I don't want to vote into office the same party that started an extremely unpopular war for an extremely stupid reason and ended up making the world less safe, in my opinion.

As for the political future? I have't a clue. I can be about 75% certain that the next president will be a Demo, but its really up in the air, you have those damned red states (pretty much the old confederacy, if you can believe it, haha) which always seem to want a Republican for their gun rights or some other stupid reason. No offense to Republicans, but I know more than a few who use that as their only reason.

Note: Yes, I do live in a red state, but since the last election Northern Virginia has been filling up with people who are from the blue states which might swing the election, perhaps.

Oh, and, for those that didnt know for whatever reason:
Red = Republican
Blue = Democratic

[Angelyne]

As for the political future? I have't a clue. I can be about 75% certain that the next president will be a Demo, but its really up in the air, you have those damned red states (pretty much the old confederacy, if you can believe it, haha) which always seem to want a Republican for their gun rights or some other stupid reason. No offense to Republicans, but I know more than a few who use that as their only reason.


If McCain (Republican) ends up running for President in 2008 like many analysts expect he will, he's going to be a very tough candidate for the Democrats to beat. He's a moderate, and not nearly as stupid as Bush.

[Josh]

If McCain (Republican) ends up running for President in 2008 like many analysts expect he will, he's going to be a very tough candidate for the Democrats to beat. He's a moderate, and not nearly as stupid as Bush.


Snaps, I didnt know McCain might run. I'd vote for him no doubt. Then again, if Mark Warner(D) runs, im going to vote for him because its Mark Friggin Warner.

[ruaidhri]

I believe the issue in this thread is the 2006 elections, not the 2008 Presidential election.

A short lesson in U.S. Government. The U.S. is just what its name indicates, a union of individual states each with their own constitution and government. Throughout our history the states have fought for their individual rights under the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the election of our President represents that fight because the President in elected by the states, not the people. The people in each state determine how their state’s electors will vote. The electors are established by the total number of representatives each state has in the U.S. Congress. The Congress has two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Representatives are apportioned to each state based on the population of the state. The Senate represents the equal status of each state under our constitution because each state (large or small) has two senators.

What we have in 2006 is a midterm election. Every member of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years. The Democrats have an excellent opportunity to win control over the House. Senators serve six year terms. Their elections are staggered so that not all senators are elected at the same time. In my state, we have two Senators, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl. Russ Feingold won reelection in 2004. Herb Kohl is currently running for reelection in the 2006 election. Also, my state will elect a Governor and members of its own Legislative body. These state elections, besides being closer to the people, are important when it comes to electing a President because it is each state that establishes Congressional districts. It’s not unusual for parties in power to “gerrymander” districts to ensure better opportunities for future elections.

It is not unusual for our national and state governments to have an executive of one party and a legislative body of the other. The Democrats controlled Congress for many years even when Republicans held the Presidency. Likewise, Bill Clinton worked with the Republican Congress when he, a Democrat, was President. All sides suffer from a stalemate. Eventually, they find common ground.

Will I vote? Absolutely! I have never failed to go to the polls. Mostly, I vote for the political philosophy over the individual. I vote Democratic. I’m not totally enamored by every Democratic candidate but I do identify more closely with their platform. While I respect many individual Republicans I won’t vote for them because of their party affiliation. If I don’t like the Democratic candidate, I simply don’t vote in that individual election.

What I especially loathe about current American elections is the dirt. Both parties have turned dirt flinging into a major sport. First they make an outlandish statement that has no basis in truth and then use that earlier statement to further deride their opponent. Why do they do that? Because, sadly, it wins elections. Candidates no longer campaign on what they’ll do for the people if elected. Instead they attempt to scare the electorate about what their opponent will do to the people if elected.

What will happen if the Democrats win control over the House and possibly even the Senate? Well, for one thing, the President will have to be more willing to listen to the people. That, to me, is a good thing.

[ZaichikArky]

I hope the democrats take back both the house and senate. I hate the republicans controlling EVERYTHING.

do you mean you won't vote in the entire election if you don't like the canidates on the democratic side, ruadhri? This election, other than governer and some other positions, I will fill in most of the position with random nonsence.

[Kass]

I think you're talking about veto power and how it works between President and Congress? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#United_States

He's talking about the president being a lame duck and no resolution coming because differing parties controlling the branches of government, which is highly likely given the idiotic refusal of the current leadership to even consider a different opinion.

That said, I wouldn't want the American system either. A system where (and I may be oversimplifying it a bit) there are only two major parties, and you don't vote directly for the parties - but you vote for a representative to vote for you.

That only applies to the presidential/vice presidential elections. Right now, we are having mid-term elections. Those are the elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate at the two-year mark of a president's four year term. Our representatives and senators are re-elected on a rolling schedule so that the entire congress doesn't turn over at one time. Representatives and senators are directly elected, not elected through an electoral college process.

Of course, all of them are idiots who should never be allowed to set foot in DC again, but that is a different discussion. That doesn't mean I won't vote though. I do my best every year to see that no incumbent in my district gets re-elected until such time as someone remotely competent gets in office. I never vote the party over the people because parties have no interest in representing the people--only in maintaining power.

[Trump]

I will vote. I'm still trying to figure out how since work has just sent me several thousand miles from home and I'm not sure if I will be back in time to vote. It was too late for an absentee ballot and too early for "early voting" because I hadn't decided who I wanted to vote for. I will figure something out though.

That said, I believe Ruaidhri summed it up very well. I think I vote just to give the parties a good idea of who is actually representing the people. If one party loses votes they realize they are doing something wrong. I inherently support the democratic ideas more than republican, but that would not stop me from voting republican for a good candidate.

[Jetsetlemming]

I'm trying to get registered to vote- My mom's making it hard on me because she thinks I'm going to be a republican (all I did was mention I like Swann in her presense.... :'(). The problem is that I'm fairly certain I need an ID to register, so I need her to take me to get a state ID card (I can't get a driver's licence, since you need insurance just to be capable of driving, and there's no way I can afford that). :(
I'd never, ever not vote for a candidate just because of their party affiliation. I don't care at all what party they're a member of when I look at a candidate and consider who they are. I don't like or dislike Swann because of he's a republican. I like him because of his ideas on Education and Healthcare reform.

[Angelyne]

I live in Pennsylvania, and did not need a state ID to register and vote in the state. Just fill out a voter registration and mail it in.

You're "supposed" to present the voter registration card (mailed to you after you register) at the polls. This card specifically states that it can be used as identification at the polls. Also, you are only asked to present this card at the first time you vote in a new precinct--afterwards, it's not necessary.

In short, you don't need a driver's license (nor do you need insurance to get one--you only need insurance if you use it to drive). You don't need to spend any money to get the voter identification used at the polls.

[Jetsetlemming]

Motherfucker! The voting registration deadline was Oct. 10th! :mad:
Edit: thanks for the info, angelyne. It's too late for me to vote in this election, though. :( All the ones AFTER this, I can, at least. =\

[Kass]

Unfortunately, in all states you have to register a certain amount of t ime ahead of the election so that they can prepare the voter rolls and print ballots. Every state I've heard of sets the time at 30 days prior to the election.

You probably won't be eligible to vote, not that that stops anyone from actually doing so. In El Paso, you don't even have to be an American. Just show up with a Democratic party rep and a phone bill and let the rep threaten lawsuits over violations of voting rights, then every day laborer off the street can vote.

[ruaidhri]

In Wisconsin a person may register on election day at the polls. A lot of people do.

[Kass]

No checks there to see that it is a valid registration...

[Fred]

I am hoping the democrats win control of the house and as many seats in the senate as possible. Primarily, what I am hoping this will accomplish is some oversight on Republican spending, particularly pertaining to the Iraq war.

[ruaidhri]

Kass,

My son Anders would be more knowledgeable on this issue. He is certified to register people for elections. He has done this at his university and when canvassing neighborhoods. He also registers people directly at the polls on Election Day. I believe that although the Registers ask the applicants if they are American citizens, the applicants only have to actually prove their residence.

Of course this is a hot issue with many people since most of the at the polls registration is done in poor neighborhoods, mostly black. There have been many charges of fraud with resultant investigations that didn’t find non-citizens had voted. There was an incident that I’m aware of where a young black woman had voted who had, when she was younger, committed a felony. She wasn’t eligible to vote because of that felony. I know about this because my wife was a potential juror at her trial. My wife did not get on that jury so I don’t know the outcome.

Do I personally agree with making it easy for people to vote? Yes, I do because the opposite is to make it more difficult.

[Jetsetlemming]

I'm fine with having to prove who I am and that I'm legally able to vote. I've got a social security card and a birth certificate, I've got no problems there. I'm just pissed that I can't vote because of the time limit. :(

[Josh]

Dont feel too bad dude. I sent my application in back in mid September and I still haven't gotten it back.

Its probably lost in the mail or never got delivered (wouldnt be the first time this type of thing has happened). What worries me is that my SSN and other info is in there and its driving me crazy.

Damn rural mail service is so unreliable around here. Ben Franklin would be spinning in his grave.

Edit: For my terrible mistake in a historical reference.

[Trump]

You do actually have to show initiative to get registerd to vote. I'm sorry you found out too late to vote in this election, but that should not deter you from being ready for next time!

[Angelyne]

Dont feel too bad dude. I sent my application in back in mid September and I still haven't gotten it back.

Its probably lost in the mail or never got delivered (wouldnt be the first time this type of thing has happened). What worries me is that my SSN and other info is in there and its driving me crazy.

Damn rural mail service is so unreliable around here. Ben Franklin would be spinning in his grave.

Edit: For my terrible mistake in a historical reference.

I posted a rant earlier in this thread about the voter's registration office not getting back to me. A few days after I posted that rant, I received a response in the mail from the voter's office. I think they're just backed up from the amount of last minuter register forms + gearing up for election day.

Believe me, I know it's incredibly frustrating, but chances are, they received your form, and have been too busy to respond in a timely manner. The best thing you can do at the this point is to find the phone number of your county voter registration office, give them a call, and check up on the status of your application.

[Kass]

ruaidhri, proving you are an American isn't all that difficult. If you are a citizen, you have a birth certificate or a social security card. Since it is mandatory that all children born in the US be registered with SS at birth, they will have proof. If they have lost their card and birth certificate, all a clerk has to do is enter an SSN in a computer hooked to the appropriate data base and verify it is valid. Takes a few minutes. I know because it is the exact same system they use to track the SSNs of child support evaders across state lines. Since federal law requires that states cooperate and enforce child support orders across state lines (and yes, it took an additional law to do this. It seems the full faith and credit clause just wasn't good enough), the basic computer system is in place and can be built upon.

There is NOTHING uncosntitutional or difficult about carrying a piece of paper ahead of time to an office or writing an SSN on an application. The vast majority of voter fraud takes place at registrations held on election day at the polls. Just because it is a small problem in your region does not make it a small problem everywhere. It is a huge problem in the border states with Mexico and in Florida. When truckloads of day laborers are allowed to vote, what is the point of a citizen voting? Their vote is outweighed by people who have no right to be in the country, let alone vote. We are losing our self-determination one vote at a time.

Considering as an experiment, a British friend of mine who is a legal resident, managed to register to vote, I'd say it's a problem everywhere. She just mailed in a post card and got a voter's registration card in the mail. She promptly canceled her registration and reported the problem to the elections board, but it won't change a thing. She could have voted in our election and she has no right to do so.

RESIDENCY does not grant the right to vote. Every legal immigrant in this country has legitimate residency. That doesn't give them the right to vote. Citizenship does. Providing proof of citizenship is not an impediment to voting. It is your obligation in exchange for that right.

Our electoral system is hopelessly corrupted and needs reform. Every vote cast by a non-citizen cheapens and renders meaningless our right to vote. If anyone from any country can do vote in our elections, it defeats our right to determine our own government and that is EXACTLY what the Revolutionary War was all about.

Jetsetlemming, call and find out the limit. As pointed out, it varies from state to state. In Virginia, it is too late. In Wisconsin, it isn't.

The idea that our Constitutional rights come without any kind of obligation or responsiblity is a very serious contributing factor to the breakdown of government and jurisprudence in this country. The concept that getting out of jury duty, an obligation of citizenship, is the cool thing to do impedes the justice system and our trial rights. It's extremely difficult to seat a jury when the bulk of the jury panel is scheming answers to force their dismissal from the panel.

The concept that in order to allow ten eligible voters to vote, we have to tolerate as many ineligible voters voting makes elections pointless. The entire point is to ensure that Americans elect the American government. Protecting that fundamental, and I'd argue sacred, principal of the American Constitution is mandatory. If that means someone has to actually be responsible and provide a single sheet of paper as proof of eligibility, so be it. That is neither an unreasonable or difficult task, especially since every American is issued two of those slips of paper upon birth.

We only have those rights which we can protect. We've quit protecting our right to self-determination.

[ruaidhri]

An important fact is that we live in the United States of America. It is each individual state that establishes the rules for voting in an election. Wisconsin, always a progressive state, chooses to be more open and free. We prefer to allow the mass of legitimate potential voters to cast their ballot even at the risk of a few illegal voters slipping through.

As I mentioned, following the election, citizen watch groups carefully and thoroughly review the at the polls registration. They have found no serious breaches. The only one I specifically know about is the convicted felon that registered and voted. She was an American citizen.

[Jetsetlemming]

Jetsetlemming, call and find out the limit. As pointed out, it varies from state to state. In Virginia, it is too late. In Wisconsin, it isn't.

I looked it up (http://www.dos.state.pa.us/voting/cwp/view.asp?a=1192&Q=443579) online the other day, which is how I found out about the Oct. 10th cutoff. I'll try to find a phone number on the site to call, but November first is a bit late after october 10th. :( I don't really mind the time limit, besides that I didn't know about it. >_> I relied on my parent to help me register for far too long before looking into it on my own. :(

[Kass]

An important fact is that we live in the United States of America. It is each individual state that establishes the rules for voting in an election. Wisconsin, always a progressive state, chooses to be more open and free. We prefer to allow the mass of legitimate potential voters to cast their ballot even at the risk of a few illegal voters slipping through.

As I mentioned, following the election, citizen watch groups carefully and thoroughly review the at the polls registration. They have found no serious breaches. The only one I specifically know about is the convicted felon that registered and voted. She was an American citizen.

The problems should be PREVENTED, not just punished AFTER they affet the outcome of the elections. Wisconsin's "progessive" policies impact the nation, not just Wisconsin. The problems there might be minimal, but that is not the case across the nation and it is the case in states that have a whole hell of a lot more electoral votes than Wisconsin.

If even 5% of the illegals in this country cast ballots (CIS estimates more than 20 million illegals in the US), that is 1 MILLION illegal ballots. Elections are won and lost by far less than that. If even 2.5% vote, that is 500,000. Our elections are even decided by less than that.

This isn't a "we had one voter who was a felon" problem. It also isn't a "few illegal voters."

It is your obligation to prove you are eligible to vote. Nothing about that prevents anyone from voting.

Citizen watch groups aren't non-partisan, either. If they were, it would have been as big a deal that the GOP's get out the vote van in Wisconsin state was vandalized by members of the Democratic party as it was GOP members passing out fliers just outside the legal limits of polling places (which was alleged to be intimidation). No watch groups came to their defense.

[Anders]

Social Security cards are not proof that you are a US citizen. Immigrants with a work permit can apply for a SS card and get one. How many people have a passport or birth certificate just lying around?

Of course there will be illegal votes. It happens in every election, it's part of the game. We try to prevent it by making sure all of the information on the application is accurate, but it is always possible that people will lie when filling it out. Making it more difficult to vote won't stop people from casting invalid ballots, it will just prevent people who normally should be able to vote from casting their ballots on election day.

[Kass]

How exactly does holding on to a birth certificate make it hard to vote, especially when verification is so freaking easy and FREE? (Unless you were born overseas like I was.)

Illegal voting should NOT be part of the game. Illegal voting sways the outcomes of elections and that is unacceptable. We are as entitled to a fair and legitimate outcome as we are the right to vote. An election swayed by illegal votes is inherently unfair. That should be painfully obvious be the very fact that we have a registration process. A process obviously set up to do EXACTLY what I am advocating.

It is no harder to show you're a US citizen when you register to vote than it is to prove residency. It's a piece of paper or a number.

Asking for a phone bill to verify residency does absolutely nothing to verify that the person is eligible to vote. It establishes that they, if eligible to vote, can vote in that particular precinct. What exactly do you do to verify citizenship? (Asking a question isn't verification.)

I believe the answer to that is nothing. Do you cross reference your voter roles with lists of convicted felons? No. You depend on some group to be annoyed and do it for you. A group that will likely only get involved at the impetus of a political party with a biased reason for disqualifying that particular vote.

You have to prove justification to get far less important things in this country than a vote. It's harder to get welfare and that is absurdly easy to get. They also fail to even look at a photo ID.

We should protect the most sacred of our rights more fiecely than any other, and that includes denying ineligible people from voting.

Nowhere does it say that our rights should be convenient in the sense that we can sit on our asses in front of the television, scribble a few lines and sign your name to a post card and then impact the course of an election. The founding fathers worked hard for the rights we have and little by little, by failing to protect them from abuse, we are squandering them. It was always expected that we work for what we have been given. It was never intended to be treated as gratuitously as you treat it.

Please tell me what exactly the point is of me voting when an ineligible voter can nullify it? It's one thing for another citizen to cast a contrary vote. That is their right. It is unconsionable that an in eligible person can do so. They have no right to challenge my decision on who represents me with their vote. To say it is okay for any reason, especially one as trite as "it is part of the game," is grossly insulting to everyone entitled to vote.

To advocate not taking any preventive measures is shameful.

[ruaidhri]

Kass, please, don’t get so upset. There is nothing either of us can do to absolutely prevent non-citizens or convicted felons from voting. Yes, we can make it more difficult. However, the problem with making it more difficult is that the registration process itself will intimidate legitimate potential voters, especially those at the lower end of the social economic scale.

Personally, I find it sad that so many black men and women are disenfranchised by felony convictions. Regardless, that’s the law and therefore must be followed to the best of our ability. But, verification that a person is a citizen and not a felon isn’t easy or cheap. The more thorough the investigation, the more intimidating the process. Consider the accuracy of the airport watch lists and how they have prevented thousands of travelers from boarding planes simply because they share a name with someone on the list www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?id=8381&siteSection=5.

Taking into account that the U.S. Constitution provides that each state establishes the rules within its individual boundaries, I don’t believe Wisconsin state lawmakers should be concerned about the registration process in Texas, or Arizona or any other state.

Now to the other issue you raised, the watch groups themselves. Of course they’re partisan. They don’t like big vote totals coming out of Milwaukee because they tend to favor the Democrats.

Yes, individuals from both the Democrats and Republicans committed acts outside the law. The point is that we’re talking about individuals, not official policy of either party. Quite properly it was the individuals that were punished.

[Kass]

I was seriously offended by being dismissed in such a manner as "it's all a game." If that is the attitude in Wisconsin, it's just another reason besides being too cold to never visit. Neither voting nor voter fraud is a game and the implication as such is revolting.

There's a very good reason felons can't vote and that is they've proven themselves untrustworthy to do so. It's the same for white felons as it is black felons. Theives, rapists, murderers and embezzlers alike all have no business in the polling place. The issue of the ratio of black vs. white felons is an entirely separate and unrelated issue. It still boils down to no one forced them to commit a felony. Poor and impoverished and disadvantaged people manage to get through life without committing crimes everyday. Don't ask me to feel badly because a felon is punished.

As for Wisconsin not being concerned about what happens in Texas or Florida or any other state, you are mistaken. Considering the number of electoral votes those states have, registration issues have national implications. Do you really want you next president determined that way--by citizens of another country, especially countries as governmentally inept as the ones to the south of our border?

While the airport lists are inaccurate, they also didn't leverage existing and working technology. The SSN tracking software is already in use nationally. It's called the IRS. The IRS and state agencies use it every day to track and locate child support evaders, as well as wages. The database and the basic software is there. It would require modifications and those do cost. Yes it is expensive, but if voting is as important to you as it appears to be, isn't the expense worth it?

And quite improperly, partisan groups who assist voter fraud are not punished. Everyone winks and nods and laughs it off. It isn't funny and I'm sick of being on the losing end of elections because of it just because people think anyone with a utility bill should be allowed to vote regardless of their eligibility. It's a right, not an entitlement.

Frankly, after this election, every state should be required to purge their voting rolls and ask everyone to re-register because the rolls are hopelessly inaccurate and beyond any realistic or useful data clean up. If people genuinely care, they'll send in their free postcard again--eligible or not.

It's a damned birth certificate, not an act of Congress.

[Roxie]

to be fair, he didn't say "it's all a game" he said "it's part of the game"

[Anders]

Kass, I never intended to offend you by my comment that "it's part of the game." Chalk it up to poor wording, but the metaphor fits. What is offensive to me is how a simple metaphor can be twisted to mean something completely different. You make the assumption that I think the whole process is some kind of joke. Perhaps your post was just satire, but I don't think elections are a joke. If I did, I certainly wouldn't be working all day at the polls next Tuesday.

[Trump]

In this day and age, why is it so difficult to check things like this? Shouldn't there be a national database of social security numbers and citizen? I mean this is the computer and database are more common than liquor stores. Maybe I'm crazy, but this just seems ridiculous.

[Anders]

Undoubtedly there is a national database like that- probably with the IRS. The problem is that your SSN is not proof that you are a citizen of the US. The idea of having a database of citizens and locations is the logistics. Starting the database would take a long time, cost a lot of money, and would continue to cost a lot of money because it would have to update every day. Even with all the technology, the same problems would still exist. The wrong people would be allowed to vote and the wrong people will be prevented from voting.

[Jetsetlemming]

The solution to that, Anders, is rework the SSN registration so that non-citizens can't do it.


Really.

[Kass]

Undoubtedly there is a national database like that- probably with the IRS. The problem is that your SSN is not proof that you are a citizen of the US. The idea of having a database of citizens and locations is the logistics. Starting the database would take a long time, cost a lot of money, and would continue to cost a lot of money because it would have to update every day. Even with all the technology, the same problems would still exist. The wrong people would be allowed to vote and the wrong people will be prevented from voting.


It exists. It is used EVERYDAY. I make use of that system. How do you think I track my loser ex all across the country? The technology and the database is already there. Somebody just has to spend the money to modify it to filter on citizenship. It's not an easy task, don't get me wrong, but it is an accomplishable task.

The problem is that the states don't like to share. Regardless of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, it took an act of Congress signed into law by Clinton (about the only thing he did that didn't cost me more money) to force states to recognize and enforce child support orders across state lines.

None of them want to cooperate because maintaining their own little fiefdoms over elections is more important than reining in voter fraud. To do otherwise threatens their own base of power.

In reality, the database wouldn't remove any real power from the states. They would contribute to the database then access it in a manner that is consistent with their laws and technology. That's already how they use the IRS database. No state enforces child support laws the same way, yet somehow, requiring a bit of cooperation doesn't seem to have changed that one bit. It is still impossibly difficult to get another state to do what they are supposed to do in any kind of reliable fashion.

The simple fact is we will continue to have the kind of leadership we do until we start forcing states to clean up their acts and their voter rolls. They are corrupted (the rolls, not the states) and beyond any realistic repair. Most states have dead people, felons and numerous other invalid names on the rolls. The motor voter registration is a key contributor. Anyone can get a license in this country, but automatically enrolling people on the voter rolls based on driver's licenses overwhelms the system with bad names and duplicate names because of variations in things like middle initials, etc.

It's broken and as long as every other state's election affects the rest of the nation, then people have the right to get pissed with some state across the country just ignores fraud out of some misplaced desire for convenience. When Wisconsin no longer participates in presidential elections and no longer sends congressmen to make laws that affect me, I'll quit being pissed at its irresponsible registration practices.

[PopCulturePooka]

I was seriously offended by being dismissed in such a manner as "it's all a game." If that is the attitude in Wisconsin, it's just another reason besides being too cold to never visit. Neither voting nor voter fraud is a game and the implication as such is revolting.

Take a joke, or try lightening up, laugh a little occasionally if at ALL possible.

You'll get far less wrinkles that way.

[Kass]

Go back and play in your own country. This is something that ACTUALLY has serious ramifications on my country and me. Just because you don't take things seriously doesn't mean they aren't serious. And it wasn't a joke. He even said so.

[ruaidhri]

Again, I must say that I live in the United States of America. At last count we have 50 separate states each making their own laws and each regulating elections within their borders. From the very beginning of the U.S. there have been disagreements between those that favor a strong central federal government and those that support state rights. Not surprisingly, depending on the issue, I have found myself on both sides of this fence. Having lived in seven different decades from 1941 to present, I have experienced the fears and hostilities expressed by both sides to this argument.

The great fallacy is that Americans are all equal; we’re not! We don’t even have equal representation in Congress. First, all states have two federal Senators regardless of their population. Second, our Constitution provides that each state shall have at least one representative, again regardless of population. That offers states with fewer people disproportionate representation in Congress and also in the Electoral College.

Because we are a union of states, not people, we are governed by different laws. Yes, it’s easier to register in Wisconsin. According to our U.S. Constitution it’s each state’s responsibility to regulate elections as they see fit. It doesn’t’ make any difference if people in other states don’t like our regulations or enforcement. They don’t even have to like our Senators or our Representatives. Members of Congress are only answerable to their state and their constituents. It is the President, Vice President and the Supreme Court that represents the Federal Government and even the President is elected not by the people but by the states through the Electoral College. And, let’s not forget, the nominees to the Supreme Court require confirmation by the Senate, which is an agent of the states.

Now, as to the matter of a federal database. It wasn’t that long ago that people feared the government’s invasion of an individual’s privacy. My Social Security Card even states “Not to be used for Identification”. In the past, Americans didn’t want a government that was too nosy. Well, now we do have the means to track everyone. But, even databases have problems. And, even if we somehow developed a flawless database how would we prevent identity theft? If an illegal really wanted to vote how would a database prevent their using someone else’s Social Security number? Maybe the answer is for everyone to be micro chipped. I certainly wouldn’t want to be at the head of that line. But, even then, those that truly wanted to cheat would find a way.

Next week I’ll vote as I always do. I hope some of my candidates win election but even if they don’t the following day will still have 24 hours.

[Trump]

I have to vote tomorrow. I will be out of town next week. Thank goodness for early voting!

[Kass]

The great fallacy is that Americans are all equal; we’re not!



All Americans are equal. All states aren't.

Because we are a union of states, not people, we are governed by different laws. Yes, it’s easier to register in Wisconsin. According to our U.S. Constitution it’s each state’s responsibility to regulate elections as they see fit.

The Federal government has the constitutional authority to override everything but the location of choosing Senators. Basically, the only absolute constitutional right the states have is where they put polling places.

It doesn’t’ make any difference if people in other states don’t like our regulations or enforcement. [quote]

It does when one state's laws adversely affect other states.

[quote]They don’t even have to like our Senators or our Representatives. Members of Congress are only answerable to their state and their constituents.

If they were answerable to anyone, we wouldn't have the lot of losers we do.

It is the President, Vice President and the Supreme Court that represents the Federal Government and even the President is elected not by the people but by the states through the Electoral College.

However, electoral votes go right in line with the popular vote of each state.

And, let’s not forget, the nominees to the Supreme Court require confirmation by the Senate, which is an agent of the states.

Confirmation and approval or disapproval are entirely different things. The Senate can refuse to confirm a candidate, but by the same token, the President is not required to submit an alternative candidate. He can put forth that candidate until someone gives.

Now, as to the matter of a federal database. It wasn’t that long ago that people feared the government’s invasion of an individual’s privacy. My Social Security Card even states “Not to be used for Identification”.

Try getting a credit card, bank account or job without one. It is already an identifer and has been for decades. You can't even rent an apartment in most states without one because property management companies and landlords use that identifying piece of information to check your credit.

It doesn't matter what it says on the card. It is a de facto piece of identification and people hand it out like candy on Halloween.

If it weren't a piece of identification, stealing it wouldn't constitute identity theft. If it isn't an identifier, stealing it would have no impact on your identity.

In the past, Americans didn’t want a government that was too nosy. Well, now we do have the means to track everyone.

"Tracking" everyone in the comprehensive manner you imply isn't going to happen any time soon. Using a database to run a comparison of valid and invalid criteria is not tracking people. No one is being followed, their vote isn't recorded to find out what it was, their movements aren't monitored.

The same people who oppose this type of validation, ironically, demand gun control laws that track and maintain databases of people who own weapons, demand their backgrounds be checked and their legal uses of said weapons be restricted. How is that any different? The second amendment is equally strong in its language protecting the absolute right to bear arms, yet it is acceptable to advocate monitoring people who choose to exercise that right.

It isn't a slippery slope either. If that were the case, all laws are cascadign down that slope. This is crime prevention because voter fraud is a crime. Punishing it afterward is good, but that doesn't undo the impact of the fraud. No one tracks down the fraudulent ballots and pulls their votes from the tally. They are still counted as official votes and impact elections.

You have to PREVENT it or punishment is moot. The desired result is still attained.

Frankly, states like Wisconsin do nothing to prevent voter fraud. They'll punish it afterward, but there is no realistic or practical prevention in place. That is just irresponsible on its face.

But, even databases have problems. And, even if we somehow developed a flawless database how would we prevent identity theft?

No database is worse than one with a few problems. Only God is perfect and people debate that too.

You prevent identity theft the exact same way you do now. IRS databases are amongst the most secure in existence. Have you ever heard of them beign hacked and tax records stolen? What about child support data bases? The recent cases of "lost" identification such as SSNs have been because information was removed from the database and lost by employees' carelessness. It has also happened an infitessimally small number of times when you consider how much information is provided by people to the corporate world and government alike and how many billions of times a day that information is legitimately accessed by people without incident. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it, but start thinking about the sheer volume of data that is accumulated just by collecting SSNs for tax purposes.

Every agency that interacts with people collects them. With that data, you can determine the gender, age, place of birth, mother's maiden name, residence, employment, salary, marital status, parental status, credit rating, what kind of cars they own, whether they have a driver's license, who their health insurance company is, your criminal history if there is one, etc. ad infinitum.

And that is JUST what anyone who pays a credit reporting agency can get. Anyoen can do it too. Just pay them. Say you're going to rent a piece of property and say you want to run the credit report of some person and give them money. If you give me your SSN and a couple of days and I can tell you more about you than your kids could.

Think for one moment about the last time you applied for a credit card or bought a car using financing. You disclosed nearly all that very information to do so. You give it to some stranger whom you know nothing about and underwent the bare minimum scrutiny to get a job or no scrutiny at all.

With the govenrment, everyone who handles personal information like this undergoes a background check. A lot of them have security clearances. The people who work at the IRS or the SS office are a lot more trustworthy than your car salesman.

Secondly, the number one cause of identity theft is people not shredding documents before tossing them or doing equally stupid things like giving out their SSN to every schmuck who calls them. You are ten times more likely to have your identity stolen because you threw away something with information on it than you are to have it stolen by someone hacking a database. Most credit card fraud is the same way. They stole your card number and PIN by watching you use it or from your trash.

It is a much smaller number that are stolen by people hacking into some company's website and it is almost never because of someone hacking the government. I don't even know of a case where someone stole an identity by hacking a government database.

If an illegal really wanted to vote how would a database prevent their using someone else’s Social Security number? Maybe the answer is for everyone to be micro chipped. I certainly wouldn’t want to be at the head of that line. But, even then, those that truly wanted to cheat would find a way.

Of course someone always finds a way around laws. If they didn't, we wouldn't need them. Does that mean you do nothing to stop them? Just because a burglar can find a different way into your house doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your doors. The idea is to make it hard to commit a crime and doing so does not make it hard to obey the law.

Verifying citizenship is the bare minimum precaution that requires NO database at all. For some reason, showing a birth certificate (or other documentaiton readily available) that is given to EVERYONE in born in the US is an unreasonable expectation.

Jumping to the microchipping argument is a scare tactic, expanding crime prevention to some absurd Big Brother-esque level. Very little information is required to verify citizenship. Name, date of birth, place of birth and a document. No one is getting chipped or giving up an internal organ.

Next week I’ll vote as I always do. I hope some of my candidates win election but even if they don’t the following day will still have 24 hours.

Yes, but that following day, voter fraud impacts your freedoms--negatively.

Unfortunately, I know I'll lose on the most important issue on the ballot in VA and will have several legal and constitutional protections stripped away because of a crappy constitutional amendment.

[Jetsetlemming]

I got no less than five political ads in the mail today, all from democratic candidates. Makes sense because my mom, and my grandparents (who lived in this house before us, and to whom all the ads are addressed to) are die-hard democrats (dispite being very far-right). Makes me wonder, though. Apparently, the republican candidates aren't even trying this election, at least in my area. I've gotten one single ad from Curt Weldon, and that's it. Nothing from Swann or Santorum or any of the other candidates.

[Plekto]

Considering that Democrats now seem to be about the environment, education, and protecting general social wellbeing(all of which are *conservative* core ideals - how the hell did THAT happen?) - and the current Republicans are pro business and fiscally liberal as all get-out. It's not hard to figure out why a lot of conservatives are now voting for anybody but the bums in power.

[Jetsetlemming]

I meant "very far-right" as in they hate gays, and at best feel extreme discomfort around minorities. My grandfather is jewish, but my grandmother never knew until more than 50 years after they were married, when last fall he got fed up with hearing her complain about kikes. Obviously poster children for the democratic party.

[Kass]

Plekto, the environment has always been a Democratic campaign issue. Why do you think Dems are often referred to as tree huggers? It was never a conservative issue in the political meaning of the word. You're confusing convservation issues with conservative issues. Those are two entirely different things.

Social welfare is also a Democratic staple. Ever hear of the New Deal? Social Security? Republicans and conservatives have always been hesitant to create large social welfare programs. Why do you think "compassionate conservatism" was such a hard sell? It was because traditionally, conservatives were loathe to spend money on social welfare.

Republicans and conservatives (and no, not all Republicans are conservatives and vice versa) have always been pro-business. Democrats are traditionally viewed as business unfriendly because of their tax-intensive social welfare policies.

Do you know at all what you are talking about? You've managed to get every single thing you've said in one post wrong. If you had paid any attention in civics or history, you might know these things.

Education is the one issue that crosses party lines (and always has), though the proposed solutions to the education "crisis" are quite different.

Much of the confusion now is that people confuse political conservatism with religious fundamentalism. Conservatives, in the true political definition, are hands off, spend no unnecessary money types. Religion never factored into it. It was all about being fiscally conservative, never socially.

Then Newt Gingrich and his buddies co-opted the religious right as a constituency and the two co-mingled. They saw an opportunity when the religious right started to become vocal and active in the face of what they perceived to be attacks on their religion and their right to believe. Much of the religious political movement today is a backlash agains the Hollywood-Clintonesque view that if you are religious, you must be stupid mantra. while Clinton and his wife attended church, etc., they allowed the perception to grow. Even in this last election, Howard Dean beat the drum that religious people are neanderthals not worthy of respect. That's why we're now stuck with a rather militant religious right that are fighting back in all sorts of ways that would be best not fought.

[Plekto]

Plekto, the environment has always been a Democratic campaign issue. Why do you think Dems are often referred to as tree huggers? It was never a conservative issue in the political meaning of the word. You're confusing convservation issues with conservative issues. Those are two entirely different things.

No, I'm not. The problem is that we confuse *political ideology* as being the same as *ethical ideology*.

Conservation of resources and the environment for future generations and also so we don't run out of resources and end up being beholden to foreign interests(Japan is a good example of this - almost all of their raw materials are imported). It's old-fashioned conservative ideology 101.

Liberal ideology by comparison is "who cares - do whatever you want".


Social welfare is also a Democratic staple. Ever hear of the New Deal? Social Security? Republicans and conservatives have always been hesitant to create large social welfare programs.

Actually, they LOVE programs. Just not to the poor. Tons of incentives and giveaways and so on to all of their friends and businesses and so on.

But none of this is conservative ideology. NONE. Conservative ideals state that you use your resources wisely and help those at the bottom to at least have a normal standard of living so as to not cost you a fortune in upkeep and maintainence. This also has the effect of raising education levels and lowering crime - both of which are also conservative ideals.

"Conservative" Republicans are claiming that somehow our economy will collapse if we give workers a larger minimum wage, despite the real data showing that standards of living increase overall every time we do this.

True Liberal ideology is "I got mine - who cares about the others?". Now which political party is doing this the most of the two?


Republicans and conservatives (and no, not all Republicans are conservatives and vice versa) have always been pro-business. Democrats are traditionally viewed as business unfriendly because of their tax-intensive social welfare policies.

Now, this is true. *Republicans* have always been for business. But the reaility is that that's their bottom line. They are actually extremely liberal in their ideology and are anything but "conservative". But since most of the U.S. is ideologically conservative, they had to reshape themselves as such to get the votes. So they use religion and being pro-military and all of these other meaningless issues(as if anyone would actually be anti-military when the chips are down, from either party) - all as smoke and mirrors.

There's nothing more "conservative" than protecting our Bill of Rights in this country. This is why there is a rift developing - they messed with the main core issue finally, and when you start stripping away rights and acting like Kings, it's hard to maintain the illusion anymore.

The sad fact is that when it coes to social, economic, and environmental policies, Democrats are closer to conservative ideology than the Republicans are at this point. It's like some Kafka-esque squewed version of reality watching the Republicans speak lately.

P.S. this is much much older than Newt and his cronies. This goes back to the turn of the last century when they sold their soul to business. The recent change is purely a new attempt to grab as much power before the people get wise to them.(and unfortunately, it apears to be a pretty successful one - sigh)

[Trump]

How.... how... can you respond to that?

Pletko, you must live on a different planet because you could not be more wrong.

Just a little fact to back it up from Miriam Websters website...


conservative

Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners <a conservative suit>


Conservatives try to maintain the status quo. The status quo since the beginning of time was that the ones in power stay in power. The rich become richer and the poor become poorer. Monopolies, no government control of business, and many other things that help the ones already with money and power to stay that way. Why do you think the south is historically Republican? Because they were plantation owners, the ones with money and power. And from there you get into large and many times religious families. Logically, it continues but can you handle it?

Some more M-W.com just in case you are still lost.


liberal

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
- lib·er·al·ly /-b(&-)r&-lE/ adverb
- lib·er·al·ness noun
synonyms LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given <a teacher liberal with her praise>. GENEROUS stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift <a generous offer of help>. BOUNTIFUL suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing <children spoiled by bountiful presents>. MUNIFICENT suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes <a munificent foundation grant>.


Democrats are liberal because they want the status quo to change. They advocate more government control of the economy and a more equal society. Liberal, progressive, changing the way the state of the world is. More money to the poor, health care to the poor and middle classes, welfare, taxes on the wealthy, all of these things are liberal ideologies. Without intervention the world would end up like the feudal system, or the monopolistic system, with none of the socialist programs we have today.

So what does the environment have to do with that?? NOTHING. What does education have to do with that? VERY LITTLE. I don't know where you get your moronic and twisted ideas, but please don't go there any more. Please get a basic understanding of the English language before you post more of your nonsense.

[harper]

I'm a little tired of coming home to answering machine messages from various candidates. I'll be voting tomorrow and have voted in each election since I turned 18. I usually vote Democrat, though I will vote for a Republican candidate that I like, especially if they are an incumbent that I think did a good job, such as our state attorney general and secretary of state.

[ZaichikArky]

So who's excited to go off votings tomorrow? Me me!

I'm voting all democrat for the House and Senate because I want the dems to reclaim the house and senate. If we don't have it this election, I think I'll go crazy . Sometimes I seriously hate this country.

I have no clue who I will vote for lesser positions. You know, like the school board. I was thinking of writing in stupid things for those, but I don't know about that yet. I really do want to take the election seriously, I do! I'm voting for the green party for governator because I don't think the dem here has a chance of winning over shwarzenegger.

I feel special that I'm allowed to vote cause I'm a naturalized citizen :p

[Josh]

I was going to vote, but I still havent gotten my registration card back in the mail and its been almost 2 months now.

Alas, my world is slightly less complete. Ahaha.

[spaik]

No, I'm not. The problem is that we confuse *political ideology* as being the same as *ethical ideology*.

Conservation of resources and the environment for future generations and also so we don't run out of resources and end up being beholden to foreign interests(Japan is a good example of this - almost all of their raw materials are imported). It's old-fashioned conservative ideology 101.

Liberal ideology by comparison is "who cares - do whatever you want".

Actually, that would be Libertarian, not Liberal, which is completely different.


Actually, they LOVE programs. Just not to the poor. Tons of incentives and giveaways and so on to all of their friends and businesses and so on.

But none of this is conservative ideology. NONE. Conservative ideals state that you use your resources wisely and help those at the bottom to at least have a normal standard of living so as to not cost you a fortune in upkeep and maintainence. This also has the effect of raising education levels and lowering crime - both of which are also conservative ideals.

"Conservative" Republicans are claiming that somehow our economy will collapse if we give workers a larger minimum wage, despite the real data showing that standards of living increase overall every time we do this.

True Liberal ideology is "I got mine - who cares about the others?". Now which political party is doing this the most of the two?


Libertarian again, not Liberal.

Now, this is true. *Republicans* have always been for business. But the reaility is that that's their bottom line. They are actually extremely liberal in their ideology and are anything but "conservative"....etc,etc...

OK, you have no idea what being 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean on the political scale. 'Liberal' doesn't mean Libertarian as you seem to believe. Honestly, do some research and find out why you look like a retard right now.

Oh yeah, the political spectrum is also a 2D measure, not just 1D.

[Jetsetlemming]

Indeed, there are four poles in the political spectrum. Conservative vs. Liberal, and parallel to them, Libertarian vs. Statist.
"I'm voting all democrat for the House and Senate because I want the dems to reclaim the house and senate. If we don't have it this election, I think I'll go crazy ."
The girl I was going out with in 2004 broke down into tears when George Bush got elected and wouldn't stop complaining about politics for weeks afterward. It had a slight "cooling" effect on the relationship. :bored:

[Kass]

Well, since we've no established that Plekto knows about as much about politics as I do about peeing standing up, I'd like to encourage everyone to go vote. As little as one vote can sway an election.

If you're in Virginia, vote NO on #1. Dont' strip away the rights of everyone because some want to deny the rights of a few.

[delen]

I am in Virginia and I did not vote nor do I have any plans to.

Edit: But as for people marrying each other, I say let any 2 people that want to go for it if it makes them happy.

[Kass]

As a Jack McCoy on Law & Order said, "Let them get married. Why shouldn't they be miserable as well?" ;)

[ZaichikArky]

the california ballot this year was HUGE. It was the size of one of those oversized greeting cards you give to people. The really, really big ones. It was kinda awsome, like it was saying "YES. I AM TEH CALIFORNIA. PH33R MY MIGHT!"

[harper]

I stopped to vote before work, but the line was very long so I left and came back after work when I had more time. I brought a book to read and got 20 pages read while waiting in line. The line wasn't horrible, but it was the longest I can ever remember it being at that precinct. The governor's race and a couple of the ballot proposals (banning affirmative action and funding for education) are hot button issues.

[Jetsetlemming]

Well, since we've no established that Plekto knows about as much about politics as I do about peeing standing up
:rofl:


My mom and the dad of a girl I like on my street had an awkward moment at the voting place today. :box: She asked him who he voted for and acted just a wee bit cool to him after he named a couple republican candidates. -_-
At least, after today, all the political spam and attack ads are going away. :hphone:

[Trump]

the california ballot this year was HUGE. It was the size of one of those oversized greeting cards you give to people. The really, really big ones. It was kinda awsome, like it was saying "YES. I AM TEH CALIFORNIA. PH33R MY MIGHT!"

Heh, you've got nothing on Florida. It was 3 pages, and they were at least legal sized (8.5 x 13 if not bigger). That doesn't even count the first page of instructions.

Seriously though, and I know it is a bit late, but if you don't know anything about candidates (like soil and water conservation district 3 manager or county court judge #4) then just don't vote on those. Leave them blank and hope there are people who do know what is going on.

[Josh]

Alrighty, its 2am here in Virginia and as it stands, with current polls in, the Democrats control the House and its 49-49-2 in the Senate for Democrats/Republicans/Independents.

Of course thats not solid yet and will probably change soon, especially here in Virginia where the Senate race is extremely close and will probably result in a recount.

Note on the Senate numbers, if it stays 49-49-2 then the Democrats will have reign over the Senate as the two Independent party members will vote with them. Ipso facto Democrats control the House and Senate. But yeah, purely speculation on my part.

[Kass]

The Virginia race will be an automatic recount because it is so close. However, that I could find, a recount has never resulted in a change in victor in Virginia.

Stupid state screwed up on the constitutional amendment though.

[Jetsetlemming]

Josh, isn't one of those independants Lieberman?
I was disappointed this morning when I listened to the news. My local representative, who really was a local guy, barely paying attention to national issues and focusing all his time on helping our area, was replaced with a guy who didn't mention our area once in his campaign, and is nothing but a parrot for the party line. :gloomy:

[Kass]

One of the independents is Lieberman, which means his seat is Democratic. He has said repeatedly that he intends to caucus with the Dems.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I talked to someone about voting the other day and they told me, "I'm not voting because I don't see any reason to do it." Which of course angered me.

I'm pretty glad Mccaskill won in Missouri, but I hope that the hiring of the minimum wage will go through. Everyone I talked to at work didn't want the minimum wage to be raised to 6.50 because they said prices would go up.

...NO IT WOULDN'T!

Oh my God, if people have that mindset all around I'm going to be freakin poor forever.

[Kass]

Prices won't necessarily go up, but a large number of small businesses will be hurt. I think that minimum wages need to be set on very local levels. Even statewide is too broad. What would work for minimum wage in western Virginia would be far too low in Northern Virginia.

However, forcing businesses to pay a "living wage" in Northern Virginia would put small businesses OUT of business.They'd have to pay McDonalds employees and the clerk at the little shoe shop near my house almost $20 an hour. No small business owner or even franchise holder could afford a payroll like that. Ironically, that was proposed by some Fairfax County executives (our county level city council types) but some quick math showed that the county paid its janitors, maintenance workers and entry level clerical workers less than the living wage. It's pretty well died on the vine.

As for you being poor because of the minimum wage, that is completely untrue. If you are working for minimum wage and don't like it, it is your responsibility to change your circumstances. Get an education and get a better job, get a promotion or just get a better job. The minimum wage was never intended to be something people could live on, but rather it was to prevent the exploitation of low skill labor forces.

No one will ever be rich or even comfortable if they settle for working for the lowest possible salary. The people who get rich are the ones who work hard and refuse to settle for the minimum anything.

[setrict]

Oh my God, if people have that mindset all around I'm going to be freakin poor forever.

I have to agree with Kass. If you're working for minimum wage, you're doing it wrong. On the other hand, I'm glad the increase passed with a cost of living adjustment build in so this will hopefully cease being a political issue in the future. There is too much tempation by liberal types to equate minimum wage with socially acceptable wage.

On funny note, I was checking out the results for a friend who was running and found this:
http://www.dsanity.net/wana.png

I hate the two party system, but it's this type of thing that makes it hard to take alternative parties like the Libertarians seriously, despite really liking their views on paper. Chief lost by the way, but did get a toking 5%.

[Roxie]

Anybody ever read Nickled & Dimed?

[delen]

Anybody ever read Nickled & Dimed?

Yea, I thought it was pretty dumb. She wasted her time to prove things that were already obvious.

[ZaichikArky]

Yea, I thought it was pretty dumb. She wasted her time to prove things that were already obvious.

Not really, at least, no more than the "supersize me" guy. I found her book very interesting, actually. I learned some new things in it. Mainly just how difficult it was to survive on your own with minimum wage. Also, how shitty working minimum wage was.

[Jetsetlemming]

You know what's way worse than working for minimum wage? Working for a sales commision. :gloomy: The most I ever made was $60 in a month. Whoever came up with the brilliant idea of marketting a $700 knife set in one of the poorest neighborhoods of the state should have been shot. x_x

[SlickWilly440]

How many hours did you work everymonth?

I didn't vote! Maybe if people like me voted and created a higher voter turnout then the Republicans wouldn't still be in control of my state.....LOL. Well even if I did vote, I would probably choose Republican because I like the color red>>>>LOL

[Trump]

I tend to be a democrat but I am against changing the minimum wage. Kass said it well.

[Josh]

The Gay Marriage Amendment passed in Virginia so now its "Virginia is for Lovers: RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY"

Im not too worried about it though, just because Virginia doesnt want its judges to force the state to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere doesnt mean its going to work. If I am correct, the Full Faith and Credit Clause still holds sway. Its not like the Constitution of the United States is going to be superceded by the Virginia State Constitution.

Once its gets to the Supreme Court (and it probably will) its going to be shot down.

[ZaichikArky]

You know what's way worse than working for minimum wage? Working for a sales commision. :gloomy: The most I ever made was $60 in a month. Whoever came up with the brilliant idea of marketting a $700 knife set in one of the poorest neighborhoods of the state should have been shot. x_x

yeah, I was hired for that. it wasn't explained to me that I had to do it only to "people I knew". After I found that out, I quit right away.

[Jetsetlemming]

How many hours did you work everymonth?

I didn't vote! Maybe if people like me voted and created a higher voter turnout then the Republicans wouldn't still be in control of my state.....LOL. Well even if I did vote, I would probably choose Republican because I like the color red>>>>LOL
Sunup to sundown for three weeks straight. About a third of that time was "flyering", advertising working for Vector Marketting (my gracious employer -_-) by leaving business cards in everybody's windshield or car door as possible. We'd drive out to mall parking lots in groups of four or five and cover the whole joint, and spend all night running back and forth between cars.

[Anders]

All these states (including my own) are writing hate into their constitutions. God it's shameful. What is it that makes the LGBT community so dangerous we need a constitutional amendment to protect ourselves from them?

Oh and by the way- YEAH DEMOCRATS!!!!! WE WON THE HOUSE, AND PROBABLY THE SENATE TOO!!!

[Kass]

The Gay Marriage Amendment passed in Virginia so now its "Virginia is for Lovers: RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY"

Im not too worried about it though, just because Virginia doesnt want its judges to force the state to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere doesnt mean its going to work. If I am correct, the Full Faith and Credit Clause still holds sway. Its not like the Constitution of the United States is going to be superceded by the Virginia State Constitution.

Once its gets to the Supreme Court (and it probably will) its going to be shot down.

It is unlikely to get to the Supreme Court anytime soon. It has to get through Commonwealth courts first and that will take a decade or so. So far, no state's or commonwealth's anti-gay marriage amendments lost challenges.

Actually, you are VERY wrong about this amendment. One, it directly contradicts the Full Faith and Credit Clause by stating that Virginia will not recognize or be bound by unions of another state that would be illegal in Virginia--you know gay marriage, civil unions, or common law marriages between straight couples. That would expressly be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Ohio passed a similar amendment and it is facing a host of unexpected complications and challenges.

Two, the second paragraph of that amendment, according to every attorney I've consulted AND a few hundred other VA attorneys AND some judges have said that the second paragraph of the amendment will nullify the ability of unmarried couples (straight or gay) to enact powers of attorney, living wills, guardianship papers and open wills to challenge because it expressly prohibits any governmental authority, from the school district level all the way up to the state level, from recognizing ANYTHING that would give an unmarried couple any benefit, right or standing that a married couple has.

Under this amendment, I cannot give my boyfriend temporary guardianship of my child if I'm in the hospital for a week. Should some idiot at the hospital get their knickers in a twist and go by the letter of the law, the state could seize my daughter, forcibly remove her from our home that we will share with my boyfriend and put her in foster care or a commonwealth facility, regardless of my wishes. Under this amendment, I cannot give my boyfriend power of attorney for my daughter or me should we become incapacitated. Under this amendment, any bequests my boyfriend leaves me shoudl he die will be open to challenge and I'll be assured to lose because I have no legal standing to inherit before any blood relations. Under this amendment, my company, which voluntarily and of its own accord offers domestic partners health insurance, will be banned from continuing this practice. It will be illegal under the VA constitution to offer benefits associated with marriage to unmarried couples. Rulings in Ohio have set legal precedent for this as well as the following problems.

Three, under this law, any unmarried partner will not be protected under domestic violence laws. This has happened in Ohio. A girlfriend who gets the crap kicked out of her by her boyfriend will not have access to expedited protective orders or other special measures enacted under domestic violence laws. I promise you that the first challenge to this amendment will be some victim who is denied a protective order or some moron who contests a domestic violence conviction and wins because the unmarried victim had no right to domestic violence law protections.

Four, this order will jeopardize enforcement of custody and child support orders of other states. If another state allows gay marriage, civil unions or common law marriages and those unions are dissolved with orders affecting custody and guardianship, they are as if they never existed in Virginia.As such, Virginia courts would be powerless to assist in the enforcement of those orders should a parent in violation of them seek refuge in Virginia. Virginia is now the perfect refuge for every deadbeat dad or mom who never married their baby's other parent. You cannot enforce the dissolution of a contract that never existed in Virginia. This by the way is not only directly contradicts the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, but also contradicts a Federal law signed by Bill Clinton that requires all states/commonwealth to support and enforce those orders and assist in the collection of support owed to parents in other states. It's just too bad he set the stage for this by signing the Defense of Marriage Act into law.

This amendment not only denies gay couples very basic rights and protections, it strips them away from people who for whatever reason choose not to marry. I personally refuse to accept that the commonwealth has any business dictating how I manage my relationships as long as they don't violate incest and child age limit laws. There should be no tax benefits, inheritance rights or automatic powers of attorney for married couples that are not given to unmarried individuals--period. If people want legal benefits from coupling, they can sign a contract and file it with the courts just like every other legal partnership from businesses to law firms. If that is the only reason for two people to get married anyway, it's a piss poor reason to do so. I simply don't believe that marriage is the exclusive beneficial institution people say it is and refuse to participate in it.

Mating is as old as the dawn of man, but it was never marriage until a religion sanctified it. The state has no authority to regulate religious rites. No religious right should be granted legal, secular standing by the government. Since I have serious issues with my boyfriend's and my respective churches (Catholic and Southern Baptist) over its codified bigotry, I don't participate in their services anymore. I can't support institutionalized hatred.

No one and no state has the authority to force me to marry just to protect my basic rights to life, legal protections and the rights to parent my child as I see fit. I simply believe marriage to be a moot institution anymore.

Oh, and just FYI, less than half of all heterosexual couples residing together are married anymore. Most are now choosing not to marry, even though they are making lifetime commitments.

If it were financially or practically feasible,I'd leave this god-forsaken commonwealth and its hateful population. Better yet, Northern Virginia could take its tax money, secede and tell the rest of the state to piss off. Northern Virginia voted downthis measure 60% against. The rest of the commonwealth supported it at almost a 75% for to override the larger NoVA population.

[Josh]

I wasn't wrong, I dont believe. I know the amendment contradicts the Full Faith and Credit Clause. But thats the reason I had stated that the amendment wouldn't hold water in the long run, I mean, how could it.

The second paragraph of the amendment sounds just so damn stupid to me in any case. No point going into why, but it doesnt seem right that a state can make it impossible for unmarried couples to enact powers of attorney, living wills, guardianship papers, et cetera.

And as to Northern Virginia seceding, don't say that, please. It just sounds so pissy when people up there say things like that. Don't take this the wrong way, I much prefer Northern Virginia to the more rural areas, but honestly.

[Trump]

The amendment is stupid. Just its very nature is against the foundation of this country. We are a country based on rights, not prohibitions.

[Kass]

I wasn't wrong, I dont believe. I know the amendment contradicts the Full Faith and Credit Clause. But thats the reason I had stated that the amendment wouldn't hold water in the long run, I mean, how could it.

The second paragraph of the amendment sounds just so damn stupid to me in any case. No point going into why, but it doesnt seem right that a state can make it impossible for unmarried couples to enact powers of attorney, living wills, guardianship papers, et cetera.

And as to Northern Virginia seceding, don't say that, please. It just sounds so pissy when people up there say things like that. Don't take this the wrong way, I much prefer Northern Virginia to the more rural areas, but honestly.

It could because it is virtually impossible to unamend the constitution. The SCotUS rarely ever rules against a state's own constitution. Thus far, none of the challenges to any of the 24 anti-gay marriage amendments have succeeded.

I've advocated secession for a few years. We pay 70% of the taxes for this state. We get in funding back for services less than 20%. We're the most populous region of this state and we get funded worse than every other part of the Commonwealth, including one-horse towns on the WV boder with populations of 100. When Gov. Warner cut the DMV, all the closed offices were in Northern Virginia, even though our population was growing. All the layoffs were in Northern Virginia, even though the DMV here was inadequately staffed.

Richmond's traffic at rush hour looks an awful lot like I66 at 4 am when I have to drive in because the state refuses to pass a transportation bill that includes money to widen one of the most heavily traveled roads in the state to more than two lanes each way. Richmond's heavily traveled highways are all six lanes or better into the city and are NEW. We're funding the building of a six-lane multi-million dollar bridge in a town on the far western border that has less than one percent of the traffic of the beltway or 66, but we can't get the potholes fixed on 66.

The House of Delegates flat out REFUSED to pass the transportation bill for Northern Virginia. Unfortunately, the number of delegates for the rest of the state outnumbers our delegates and they never pass a bill that funds us adequately. Between that and partisan bickering, we get screwed. The lines for delegates won't be redrawn to accommodate changes in populations either.

Counties in Southern Virginia have equal numbers of state funded probation officers to Fairfax County even though the population of Fairfax County is ten times theirs. Only our budgets and state funded positions are cut every year. Probation officers in the southern part of the state have caseloads 1/4 the size of Fairfax County as a result. Our probation departments are overworked and understaffed.

Fairfax County had to cut the budget in several places to compensate for the funding lost when the state cut money for the day care subsidies for the children of the working poor. We've had a growing need for the last decade and instead of even keeping the same levels as last year, the state slashed funding of the program.

About four years ago, the five cities and counties of Northern Virginian put a bond issue on the ballot to raise only our sales taxes by .25% to fund a transportation initiative here. No other part of the state would be affected and the money would remain here. Richmond legislators and lobbyists spent more than $10 million to defeat it because the money would remain in Northern Virginia. We apparently had no right to raise our own taxes to fund projects on our own that the state should have been funding BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE PAY TAXES FOR.

The rest of Virginia is an economic leech on the backs of Northern Virginians. Richmond has no interest in this part of the state except for reaching into our wallets. I have no problem contributing to the welfare of the entire commonwealth as long as our needs are met. They aren't. The rest of this state is living well of our tax revenue and the living conditions here just get worse and worse. No funding for roads, schools, welfare programs, health departments, DMV for us, even though we keep this state afloat. The rest of Virginia needs to live on its own tax revenue or start saying "thank you" instead of "fuck you" to Northern Virginia.

The rest of Virginia is completely out of step with and uninterested in representing fairly our part of the commonwealth. Unless that starts happening, I do and will continue to very seriously advocate secession in order to get fair and just representation of this population.

[Jetsetlemming]

So you'd have North Virginia, South Virginia, and West Virginia? :knockout:

[Josh]

Im not going to argue with you over this because, honestly, you'd win. But I will say that I think you are over exaggerating you point. Just my opinion, but I get the idea that you think the rest of Virginia is living some lavish lifestyle and counting your money as you toil away.

I lived in Prince William County for 16 and 1/2 of my 18 years and it was never as bad as you make it sound except for the problems with 66 and I wholly agree with that, but really. As you stated, Northern Virginia is the most populous region and of course the tax burden is mostly going to fall on the shoulders of Northern Virginians, nothing you can do about that. Its not like the state government is going to tax the hell out of farmers and expect too much.

Besides, take into account the costs of developing the rest of Virginia. The state isn't going to pour more money into a region that perhaps needs only routine maintenance. Its going to build up its outlying areas as well in order to make more money and spend only whats needed to repair infrastructure and keep state funded operations going, even if at a low level.

Look at the big picture, not just Northern Virginia, so yeah. I shall say once again so as to make you know that I am not just some damned country bumpkin, I love Northern Virginia, it is my original home. But that said, I love the rest of Virginia too, for all its successes and for all its failures, and when you advocate secession because you believe you are getting reamed and treated unfairly by the system, I must protest.

EDIT: Yeah, I guess I did argue a bit, but eh, let the onslaught begin.

[Kass]

You should spend some time reviewing the budget a bit. Counties with half the population of Fairfax have equal numbers of DMV clerks, probation officers and get more highway funding than Fairfax, Arlington, Loudon and Prince William counties and the City of Alexandria.

If the tax burden is mostly going to fall on Northern Virginians, the least this state can do is make sure we have adequate funding for our needs. The most populous region of the state is going to have greater needs than any other region. More people, more needs. I'd settle for equal per capita funding.

We need a whole hell of a lot more than routine maintenance. Our roads aren't even constructed to handle the traffic volume anticipated for the 1980s and this is 2006. The state is 25 years behind on highway construction in NoVA. They aren't in the rest of the state.

Filling in potholes isn't going to make 66 wider or the Springfield interchange magically complete. We actually had construction underway to widen 66 through Manassas to Gainesville, but gosh golly, funding got cut and construction stopped in the middle of the project. Parts of the road are left unfinished and you can see where the land was graded for the next phase that will never happen. When was the last time a major road project in Richmond was stopped in the middle of it?

God forbid Virginia cough up its fair share of Metro money. The extension of the Metro out to Dulles Airport is getting screwed because the Legislature won't meet its obligations. As it is, against all the advice of engineers, city planners and business representatives in the area, rather than build the extension as a tunnel under Tyson's Courner, they are going to do a fly over. This poses a danger in that one hill it will have to climb is steeper than the safe grade that a metro car can travel, so they have to start the climb miles ahead of the hill, necessitating exceptionally high tracks. Construction will be more complicated and will result in more traffic problems during construction. This in an area that is among the most congested in NoVA. It also creates an eyesore. Who wants an elevated train right outside their condo window?

Why did Gov. Kaine decide this? Because it was cheaper. It was the more foolish decision, but it was cheaper, so there you go. Gov. Kaine found a way to reduce what had to be spent and the needs of the region be damned. Besides, the metro doesn't help Richmond at all, so why bother?

I don't think the rest of Virginia is living richly. I think it is living beyond its needs at the expense of Northern Virginia. We are getting hosed. When you lived here, did you pay property taxes? Did you pay the bills? The sales taxes? The state income taxes? Probably not based on your age.

Between federal taxes, state income taxes, car taxes, property taxes and sales taxes, nearly 40% of my salary is out the window. Believe it or not, the federal taxes are less than all the state and local taxes.

We have the highest property taxes in the state because we have to make up for the revenue that Richmond gets in state taxes. The taxes on a moderately sized and priced townhouse in Fairfax or Arlington is more than you'd pay in rent for a year in the rest of Virginia. These would be homes considered "starter homes" for young couples and families.

Elderly couples have had to sell their homes because even though they didn't have a mortgage, they couldn't pay their property taxes. The Washington Post had a series of articles on this last year. When people who have worked all their lives and paid off a home have to sell it to meet their tax obligations, something is seriously wrong. Our taxes wouldn't be that high if we didn't have compensate for a serious lack of funding from the state. You know, money we paid in taxes that we don't get back in the form of services and infrastructure.

Spend a little time perusing the budget and figure out the per capita spending for Northern Virginia and the rest of the state. Ours is about 1/4 the rest of the state. Pay taxes for a while. Try to buy a home here. Try to live here. Then tell me I'm complaining over nothing.

[Y.T.]

Who wants an elevated train right outside their condo window?

Trainspotters?

I mean.. if the train ran silently.. I wouldn't mind having an elevated train running through my garden.

Trains and streetcars
.. in my hometown, an intesting traffic accident involving tram happened once. There is a steep (12-15° degrees off horizontal) slope in one part of the town. 250 metres long.

Thirty years ago, a streetcar somehow couldn't brake, accelerated to ~ 100 kph going downhill, derailed, plowed into a block of apartments, broke through the block to the other side. 19 dead.. 50 wounded or so.
Officially it was mechanical failure.. but there is talk it was human error. Since then, streetcars have to come to a full stop halfway down the slope, and then continue.


We need a whole hell of a lot more than routine maintenance. Our roads aren't even constructed to handle the traffic volume anticipated for the 1980s and this is 2006. The state is 25 years behind on highway construction in NoVA. They aren't in the rest of the state.


I recommend watching this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug


Elderly couples have had to sell their homes because even though they didn't have a mortgage, they
[snip]
form of services and infrastructure.

At least we don't have property taxes in my country. Elderly people just live poorly..
I should mention this to my grandfather.. (the hardline communist). He'll be interested.

[Kass]

What are you on about?

[Y.T.]

Kindly pointing out that people all around the world have legitimate grievances...
*It should be a separate thread... It's universal. Nearly everyone can rant about unfair taxation, red tape, corrupt politicians.. toxic waste, smog, immigrants.. gypsies (If you have seen Lord of War and saw that aircraft dismantled.. in some parts of Slovakia.. same happens to any uninhabited structure)
Would make enteretaining reading.
(and people like you never, ever stop grumbling). Or stop grumbling, just before an armed popular uprising..

[Kass]

You are so paranoid. And so far off base it isn't funny, but whatever. I'm guessing fairness doesn't translate well.

[chad mullet]

I've advocated secession for a few years....
..I do and will continue to very seriously advocate secession in order to get fair and just representation of this population.

I thought it was made abundantly clear in 1865 that a state does not have the right to secede from the Union?

[Kass]

Not secede from the union--secede from the Commonwealth of Virginia and become an independent state.

[Y.T.]

It's true with the gypsies..
They dismantle buildings into bricks. You haven't seen this with your own eyes, but it happens. In rural areas ... not in cities.

Some people already call Eastern Slovakia "Romaland"..
fortunately, bracing doses of capitalism and liberlism are already curtailing their population growth..(welfare has been brutally gutted. They used to get child benefits for every kid, now only 1-3. child. Commies gave them benefits for every kid.. this led them to forget about ever using condoms and multiply rapidly. Too bad no one had the guts to use the Stalinist approach to population control. Forced sterilisations have never adopted as an official policy before the 1989 revolution. And now we have crazy US religious organizations claiming Slovak obstetricians do it on purpose, because the gypsy woman can't remember signing a form giving consent to being sterilised for health reasons
(if you combine bad diet, smoking, drinking, and four pregnancies, the health risks compound))
and maybe their numbers will continue to decrease due to their atrocious habits.
Take one look at our current population density and you'll see why it's desirable.


You are so paranoid. And so far off base it isn't funny, but whatever. I'm guessing fairness doesn't translate well.

Fairness translates well. We don't have enough of that in my country. People like being on friendly terms with others, and thinks fairness is inimical to that.

Off what base? Off center? I do suspect that if I ever publicize an essay calling for disenfranchisment of voters.. or join an organisation propagating that I'll get arrested for "propagating ideas conducive to curtailment of fundamental human rights".
Unfortunately, voting for populists seems to be a fundamental human right.
(Our last election. The people elected a "socialist" government. Somehow, those socialists are all quite well off, all of them worth more than 1,000 K $. That's not exactly middle class in our country. Middle class is cca 120 000$ of assets and a reasonable income (12000+ $ a year per adult).
Their idea of good business deal is buying land, then having it rezoned from agricultural land to "housing plots". That makes the value jump up to the tune of 1000%.
And permutations of that scheme.
Champions of the poor...
That's what they are...

The new government already disbanded* the special court, which was a high security installation near our capital that handled high profile mafia and fraud cases.
It's an open secret that regional judges don't want to cause any offence to prominent families. It's getting better though. Ten years back, one rich kid got off with 3500$ fine for permanently disabling a man... She ran him over with an SUV, two days after getting her driving permit.
At least they haven't amended our new penal code..

*cynics say they envied the 10 000$ monthly salary special court judges enjoyed.
(our mafia is quite competent. No "drive by shootings". Oh no.. they lie in wait, and usually fill the BMW or Audi of a competitor/irritant with 7.62x39 mm bullets (AK ammo).
(There was a prominent gang that disposed of bodies by submerging them in concentrated H2SO4... it worked for years... )

[Josh]

EDIT: Ya know, I agree to disagree.

But one last thing, the entire argument you made, is pretty much the reason that Northern Virginia will never be able to secede from the Commonwealth.

[Kass]

Well, we will outnumber you pretty soon. The rest of Virginia might find themselves on the losing end of a lot of things in the future. Fairfax County alone has one million people. Make enough of them mad and it will cause problems.

[Black Dog]

I didn't vote yesterday, becuase I didn't know anything about the people running. I was too busy walking around downtown looking a job.

[Josh]

Only about 2 million people live in all of Northern Virginia out of Virginia's 8 million population overall. Perhaps more dense than the rest of Virginia, but its not going to be in the majority anytime soon.

[delen]

I live in Richmond and from what I have seen seems like people are pretty conservative around here.

[Trump]

Hm ... Viriginia is a commonwealth? I've heard commonwealth states have wierd rules.

[Jetsetlemming]

Michael Moore's responce to the elections. http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=201
I just love how he speaks from a position of authority. Of course, everyone knows he dictates policy for the democratic party now, right? I also love the final part;
"We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray."
Made me lol.

[Josh]

Virginia is one of 4 commonwealths within the U.S. It doesn't make it any different than any other state that isnt a commonwealth (literally means, for the common good) except those few odd rules which you mentioned.

Like, I can carry a gun into a store, without required permits, as long as there isnt a sign saying "No Firearms on Premises." And if I so felt, I could also carry a loaded/unloaded weapon within my car as long as its within plain sight. Gotta love a commonwealth and its gun rules eh?