ARTICLE: Is Government Legitimate Without the Right to Vote?

[The T]

My own philosophy isn't necessarily limited to least intrusive, depending on what type of intrusion you're focused on. But different strokes - otherwise I'm with you 100%. Both "sides" use government as a tool to further cement their own power, both legal authority and public funds, and when it's in their self-interest they work together nicely to shut out all "upstarts" and protect their turf. So sad that so many buy into the illusion that political parties work for them.

The operative word is control. I remains incumbent on any citizen to watch what their electeds do, measure it with their liberty, and act accordingly.

I am humbled seeing that the people let those that wish our good graces for power know to cease treating that in which they ask [our votes] as a necessary, and irritating exercise, and show some respect for their employers. The Employers aren't tolerating it any longer.

And as the current situation would have it? Both parties have been served that notice. All one has to do to see it's effectiveness, is we see in their recent reactions, their words, their deeds.

The people have been threatened, demeaned as pawns, tools for the political elitists for far too long. Assertion to the real right of power of the Governed, is now being played...and it's long over due. Let the scoffers beware, and give way.

 

[antagon]

O no, no the "stupid bitch" card. NooooOOooooo...................

Don't take it too hard, Maddy. It's all some people have.

What I find fascinating is the practice of tying ballot access to partisan results from the previous election. If we needed any evidence of the systemic unfairness of the partisan system, IMO this is it. Why should past results restrict future ballot access for any individual or party? What is the rationale?

political stability through systematized traditionalism.

i think the result of this, our damned-to-be 2-party system, is superior to multi-party systems for a host of reasons.

 

[The T]

This might interest you guys.

Sentencing Law and Policy: Is letting prisoners vote a "dangerous idea"?

There is a reason why they have been denied the vote. Legislators vote upon laws. They have shown through their conviction that they aren't interested in law and order.

Their vote would be an affront to the LAWS they have shown distain for.

 

[antagon]

rule of law determines the legitimacy of government in the end-game. the only common denominator among governments which manage to stay in power over time.

 

[The T]

O no, no the "stupid bitch" card. NooooOOooooo...................

Don't take it too hard, Maddy. It's all some people have.

What I find fascinating is the practice of tying ballot access to partisan results from the previous election. If we needed any evidence of the systemic unfairness of the partisan system, IMO this is it. Why should past results restrict future ballot access for any individual or party? What is the rationale?

political stability through systematized traditionalism.

i think the result of this, our damned-to-be 2-party system, is superior to multi-party systems for a host of reasons.

Nevermind just voting for someone on their stance, their actions to preserve Liberty as it is laid forth in the Founding. Parties are dangerous, and why Independents are becoming vogue.

 

[The T]

rule of law determines the legitimacy of government in the end-game. the only common denominator among governments which manage to stay in power over time.

And those laws have ensured that they do. No question. Time that changed, and those laws were repealed and the legitimacy of the Governed is restored.

 

[goldcatt]

O no, no the "stupid bitch" card. NooooOOooooo...................

Don't take it too hard, Maddy. It's all some people have.

What I find fascinating is the practice of tying ballot access to partisan results from the previous election. If we needed any evidence of the systemic unfairness of the partisan system, IMO this is it. Why should past results restrict future ballot access for any individual or party? What is the rationale?

political stability through systematized traditionalism.

i think the result of this, our damned-to-be 2-party system, is superior to multi-party systems for a host of reasons.

The problem I have is not with a 2-party system per se, IF the two parties that gained ascendancy did it on a level playing field and by being the natural choice of voters.

The problem I have is when we have a system like the current one, wherein the two dominant parties (themselves private entities, remember - not public) are able and willing to use public funds and the power of the laws to promote, maintain and enforce their own dominance. In the process, we as individuals lose the power of choice and the parties themselves lose their ability to evolve, dissolve and reform as the political climate demands.

We end up stuck in a static system where two private entities become more and more distant from both the people they claim to serve and the real issues of governance, and without any formal accountability dictate all public choices. Alternative voices face enormous obstacles or are shut out of the process altogether.

Perhaps if two private entities wish to control the public electoral process to this extent, they should also be required to pay for the elections.

What's not to love about that tradition, right?

 

[Flopper]

It is far too difficult for an independent or a third party candidate to be elected to office. Antiquated election laws that benefit Dems and Reps and the lack of laws that limit campaign spending insure the dominance of our two major parties. More Independents in congress would be a refreshing change.

 

[goldcatt]

This might interest you guys.

Sentencing Law and Policy: Is letting prisoners vote a "dangerous idea"?

It's an issue the States deal with individually. States are allowed to deny the vote on the basis of a criminal conviction, many do. Since voting rights are up to the States and the 14th doesn't apply to curtailment of most rights based on criminal conduct, I have no problem with whatever each State decides for itself.

 

[antagon]

Don't take it too hard, Maddy. It's all some people have.

What I find fascinating is the practice of tying ballot access to partisan results from the previous election. If we needed any evidence of the systemic unfairness of the partisan system, IMO this is it. Why should past results restrict future ballot access for any individual or party? What is the rationale?

political stability through systematized traditionalism.

i think the result of this, our damned-to-be 2-party system, is superior to multi-party systems for a host of reasons.

Nevermind just voting for someone on their stance, their actions to preserve Liberty as it is laid forth in the Founding. Parties are dangerous, and why Independents are becoming vogue.

this may be viable in local politics, however, in application, the southern european partisan plurality thing is nonsense. simply not efficient at anything. i dont have a preference between parties, but i do affirm debate and reform within these parties to better reflect their constituent's sentiments. there is also a lot to be said about the value of platforms. these are the mechanisms where a lot of voters get their information from in the first place. for the majority of voters who value that type of preparation, there you have it. if you are an independent thinker, an onus is created for the parties to seek to earn your vote. that seems to work. in the end, strong governments are able to get through debates and legislative activity because of consensus. this is facilitated in part by the limited party system. individual candidates have individual stances, notwithstanding.

 

[The T]

It is far too difficult for an independent or a third party candidate to be elected to office.

Yeah they get elected,,,then change parties or turn independent when they see a rising tide of discontent. Three cheers for their honesty and principles.

Antiquated election laws that benefit Dems and Reps and the lack of laws that limit campaign spending insure the dominance of our two major parties. More Independents in congress would be a refreshing change.

Agreed. Albiet the McCain Feingold should have never been passed.
I do agree with having people in there doing the real bidding of those that sent them rather than being married to or towing a party line. That has been the detriment of this Republic as President Washington spoke of in his parting remarks that I posted earlier.

 

[antagon]

rule of law determines the legitimacy of government in the end-game. the only common denominator among governments which manage to stay in power over time.

And those laws have ensured that they do. No question. Time that changed, and those laws were repealed and the legitimacy of the Governed is restored.

i'm just putting forward a fact of the matter as i see it. from my view, there's nothing desperately disconnected with american politics. it is in my estimation more democratic than it has ever been. despite that, i just think that it is disingenuous to call a totalitarian regime illegit if it could maintain the rule of law. i dont think it makes much sense to ascribe legitimacy to democracies which cant. democracy is a tool whereby nations can maintain the rule of law with less expenditure of force. the legitimacy is in whether or not they can sustain the act, no matter how it is configured.

 

[goldcatt]

It is far too difficult for an independent or a third party candidate to be elected to office.

Yeah they get elected,,,then change parties or turn independent when they see a rising tide of discontent. Three cheers for their honesty and principles.

Antiquated election laws that benefit Dems and Reps and the lack of laws that limit campaign spending insure the dominance of our two major parties. More Independents in congress would be a refreshing change.

Agreed. Albiet the McCain Feingold should have never been passed.
I do agree with having people in there doing the real bidding of those that sent them rather than being married to or towing a party line. That has been the detriment of this Republic as President Washington spoke of in his parting remarks that I posted earlier.

IMO, competition is the answer. And competition is exactly what the parties as entities manipulate the system to avoid.

 

[antagon]

Don't take it too hard, Maddy. It's all some people have.

What I find fascinating is the practice of tying ballot access to partisan results from the previous election. If we needed any evidence of the systemic unfairness of the partisan system, IMO this is it. Why should past results restrict future ballot access for any individual or party? What is the rationale?

political stability through systematized traditionalism.

i think the result of this, our damned-to-be 2-party system, is superior to multi-party systems for a host of reasons.

The problem I have is not with a 2-party system per se, IF the two parties that gained ascendancy did it on a level playing field and by being the natural choice of voters.

The problem I have is when we have a system like the current one, wherein the two dominant parties (themselves private entities, remember - not public) are able and willing to use public funds and the power of the laws to promote, maintain and enforce their own dominance. In the process, we as individuals lose the power of choice and the parties themselves lose their ability to evolve, dissolve and reform as the political climate demands.

We end up stuck in a static system where two private entities become more and more distant from both the people they claim to serve and the real issues of governance, and without any formal accountability dictate all public choices. Alternative voices face enormous obstacles or are shut out of the process altogether.

Perhaps if two private entities wish to control the public electoral process to this extent, they should also be required to pay for the elections.

What's not to love about that tradition, right?

i think there's dividends to a two-party system not accounted for in your appraisal, goldcatt. that said, i think it is in the purview and interest of government to maintain that by way of soft restrictions like steep signature requirements. i could reterm your idea of reforming and evolving political representation as political volatility. i dont think that government should jerk policy around like that, personally. i argue that a plurality of opinion as to how will lead to less effectiveness than the status quo, too.

i could summarize the proceeds of a two party system with the word mandate. in terms of the extract of suffrage which lends to the legitimacy of government, i think mandate is what really does it. mandate for leadership in multi-party systems is too weak. if victory can be achieved with 20% of the vote as it can in italy, the victor cant demonstrate that they have the backing of a majority or even close. this is a problem.

 

[The T]

rule of law determines the legitimacy of government in the end-game. the only common denominator among governments which manage to stay in power over time.

And those laws have ensured that they do. No question. Time that changed, and those laws were repealed and the legitimacy of the Governed is restored.

i'm just putting forward a fact of the matter as i see it. from my view, there's nothing desperately disconnected with american politics. it is in my estimation more democratic than it has ever been. despite that, i just think that it is disingenuous to call a totalitarian regime illegit if it could maintain the rule of law. i dont think it makes much sense to ascribe legitimacy to democracies which cant. democracy is a tool whereby nations can maintain the rule of law with less expenditure of force. the legitimacy is in whether or not they can sustain the act, no matter how it is configured.

No question. But one would suppose that such a government would respect and hold in high esteem the documents ratified to make it what it is.

We see before us now that isn't the case. Those in power have no reguard for the Documents, and do their level best to skirt, to circumvent it while telling the masses that the law they pass is something other than what it truly is.

That practice has caught up to them. And the governed aren't a bit pleased that they have been lied to, and their trust has been besmirched to the point that normally politically inactive have had their lives torn asunder to the point to where they have had to act to counter the breach of trust.

That is what the Tea Party is. Like it or not...the Governed calling into question of the legitimacy of those they thought they could trust.

Elections do indeed have consequences. And those consequences are paying negative dividends as to liberty in favour of government.

Those who gave stock, are demanding repayment...and it is going to be paid by both parties no matter the word or deed of either party. It's a matter of trust. And they are overdrawn.

 

[Flopper]

political stability through systematized traditionalism.

i think the result of this, our damned-to-be 2-party system, is superior to multi-party systems for a host of reasons.

The problem I have is not with a 2-party system per se, IF the two parties that gained ascendancy did it on a level playing field and by being the natural choice of voters.

The problem I have is when we have a system like the current one, wherein the two dominant parties (themselves private entities, remember - not public) are able and willing to use public funds and the power of the laws to promote, maintain and enforce their own dominance. In the process, we as individuals lose the power of choice and the parties themselves lose their ability to evolve, dissolve and reform as the political climate demands.

We end up stuck in a static system where two private entities become more and more distant from both the people they claim to serve and the real issues of governance, and without any formal accountability dictate all public choices. Alternative voices face enormous obstacles or are shut out of the process altogether.

Perhaps if two private entities wish to control the public electoral process to this extent, they should also be required to pay for the elections.

What's not to love about that tradition, right?

i think there's dividends to a two-party system not accounted for in your appraisal, goldcatt. that said, i think it is in the purview and interest of government to maintain that by way of soft restrictions like steep signature requirements. i could reterm your idea of reforming and evolving political representation as political volatility. i dont think that government should jerk policy around like that, personally. i argue that a plurality of opinion as to how will lead to less effectiveness than the status quo, too.

i could summarize the proceeds of a two party system with the word mandate. in terms of the extract of suffrage which lends to the legitimacy of government, i think mandate is what really does it. mandate for leadership in multi-party systems is too weak. if victory can be achieved with 20% of the vote as it can in italy, the victor cant demonstrate that they have the backing of a majority or even close. this is a problem.

We have had dozens of third parties. All they seem to do is suck votes away from either the Dems or Reps. thus insuring the dominance of one party. I prefer to see more independents.

 

[midcan5]

This is a interesting issue, so far the two parties have worked pretty well. But consider the various populist movements that interfere in sometimes a good way in the electoral process. Progressives last century and tea party today. Given our recent elections it would seem it better or easier to run your candidate against the opposition, if you think they are strong enough to win. But then the assumption is 'your party' has new ideas. Elect a few of these candidates and then they can later form their own party. Look a Bernie Sanders as an example. I've heard Italy can get nothing done because of too many parties, but having been there they must be picking some ok social democrats. lol

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcEuhi7KKHA]YouTube - 09.29.08: God Bless Our Two-Party System[/ame]

 

[The T]

It is far too difficult for an independent or a third party candidate to be elected to office.

Yeah they get elected,,,then change parties or turn independent when they see a rising tide of discontent. Three cheers for their honesty and principles.

Antiquated election laws that benefit Dems and Reps and the lack of laws that limit campaign spending insure the dominance of our two major parties. More Independents in congress would be a refreshing change.

Agreed. Albiet the McCain Feingold should have never been passed.
I do agree with having people in there doing the real bidding of those that sent them rather than being married to or towing a party line. That has been the detriment of this Republic as President Washington spoke of in his parting remarks that I posted earlier.

IMO, competition is the answer. And competition is exactly what the parties as entities manipulate the system to avoid.

Big Time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Our Government is not legit without the right to vote BUT even we set limits on who can by age and citizenship. We require a verifiable address and they can only vote in THAT district legally.

Other Countries are legit in the eyes of the US whether the citizenry has a real right to vote or not. And guess what? Unless we the USA have a reason to intervene it is none of our Business. And the reason why States intervene has little to do with what YOU or some professor thinks is right or wrong.

 

[goldcatt]

political stability through systematized traditionalism.

i think the result of this, our damned-to-be 2-party system, is superior to multi-party systems for a host of reasons.

The problem I have is not with a 2-party system per se, IF the two parties that gained ascendancy did it on a level playing field and by being the natural choice of voters.

The problem I have is when we have a system like the current one, wherein the two dominant parties (themselves private entities, remember - not public) are able and willing to use public funds and the power of the laws to promote, maintain and enforce their own dominance. In the process, we as individuals lose the power of choice and the parties themselves lose their ability to evolve, dissolve and reform as the political climate demands.

We end up stuck in a static system where two private entities become more and more distant from both the people they claim to serve and the real issues of governance, and without any formal accountability dictate all public choices. Alternative voices face enormous obstacles or are shut out of the process altogether.

Perhaps if two private entities wish to control the public electoral process to this extent, they should also be required to pay for the elections.

What's not to love about that tradition, right?

i think there's dividends to a two-party system not accounted for in your appraisal, goldcatt. that said, i think it is in the purview and interest of government to maintain that by way of soft restrictions like steep signature requirements. i could reterm your idea of reforming and evolving political representation as political volatility. i dont think that government should jerk policy around like that, personally. i argue that a plurality of opinion as to how will lead to less effectiveness than the status quo, too.

i could summarize the proceeds of a two party system with the word mandate. in terms of the extract of suffrage which lends to the legitimacy of government, i think mandate is what really does it. mandate for leadership in multi-party systems is too weak. if victory can be achieved with 20% of the vote as it can in italy, the victor cant demonstrate that they have the backing of a majority or even close. this is a problem.

The system is designed to stabilize itself without the presence of political parties at all. What the parties themselves represent is not government stability, but entrenched interests and advancement of private organizations and agendas in the public arena, using public resources and monopolizing the public discourse.

What other private, nominally nonprofit entities are granted this type of control and have it protected by law, using public funds to carry it out?