A Simple Plea to All

[The Pirate Bob]

Political biases and opinions aside, tomorrow is election day and we all have the opportunity to exercise our right to vote. Like our founding fathers 200 years ago, our soldiers still today fight to defend that freedom and right for us. Let's not take it for granted or ever cheapen their lives by not voting.

I know that we often may not like our choices, but the fact still remains we live in a country where people are willing still today to fight and die for us to be able to make a choice. Stand up and thank all those who have fought, died, and secured that right for us by giving a few minutes tomorrow to vote, even if you just write someone else's name in on the ballot.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by The Pirate Bob
...even if you just write someone else's name in on the ballot.

No. No. No.

I believe going to the polls without bothering to be informed about the issues and the candidates, and instead showing up to simply vote party lines or just to say that you voted (because someone once said you didn't have the right to ***** and moan if you didn't vote) does nothing but a grave disservice to our country and our political system.

[HibachiDG]

I believe going to the polls without bothering to be informed about the issues and the candidates, and instead showing up to simply vote party lines or just to say that you voted (because someone once said you didn't have the right to ***** and moan if you didn't vote) does nothing but a grave disservice to our country and our political system.

Most people have probably heard a little bit about a couple of the candidates on the ballot. It's hard not to hear anything at all about ANY of the candidates, I would imagine. Do I think the political campaign strategies of the hell with issues, lets just talk ****, that comes from both sides in a lot of elections, is a bad thing? Certainly. Do I think that people should attempt to be informed about the candidates they're voting for? Certainly.

Also, in this election year, there are more ballot referendums than ever, from my understanding. While someone can certainly enhance their knowledge base by informing themselves of these issues beforehand, it shouldn't be a pre-requisite.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by Doug Graham
Most people have probably heard a little bit about a couple of the candidates on the ballot. It's hard not to hear anything at all about ANY of the candidates, I would imagine. Do I think the political campaign strategies of the hell with issues, lets just talk ****, that comes from both sides in a lot of elections, is a bad thing? Certainly. Do I think that people should attempt to be informed about the candidates they're voting for? Certainly.

Also, in this election year, there are more ballot referendums than ever, from my understanding. While someone can certainly enhance their knowledge base by informing themselves of these issues beforehand, it shouldn't be a pre-requisite.

I never said that it should be a pre-requisite to be well-informed about the issues or the candidates before you vote. I was taking issue with Bob's comments for people to vote "even if you just write someone else's name in on the ballot," because it shouldn't be a pre-requisite for those who are uninformed to get out and partake in the election process, either.

I had a lady in this area who is voting by advance ballot call the radio station and demand that we do a news story, because her advance ballot did not contain a county commissioner race.

After numerous attempts, she still couldn't comprehend that if she didn't live in the commissioner's district, she didn't get to vote in the race.

Instead of pushing people to simply get out and vote, let's instead push the people to become more informed about the issues and the candidates.

Then, the voting should take care of itself.

[HibachiDG]

The thing that threw me was the "simply vote party lines or just to say that you voted (because someone once said you didn't have the right to ***** and moan if you didn't vote)". I personally hate the idea of just voting a party line in there, but if someone feels that they want to just go vote for the party they think they connect with, I'd rather they do that than just not vote.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by Doug Graham
if someone feels that they want to just go vote for the party they think they connect with, I'd rather they do that than just not vote.

And that is where you and I will disagree.

By thinking they will connect with someone's views, and not taking the time to know if they actually connect with that person's views, they are doing a grave disservice to our country and our political system, in my opinion.

Because, (get ready for this teary-eyed, cliche-filled announcement, immediately following this dramatic pause)...

...
...
...
...every vote counts.

And not taking the time to understand what or who you are voting for is practically rendering your vote and your voice moot.

[HibachiDG]

Then I go back to what I said in the first place.

There are inevitably some things that happen that make someone think that voting whatever straight party line they put down is the right thing for them to do. I think you've got a point if someone just randomly flips a coin to associate themselves with a Democrat or Republican, but I don't think most people come to the democrat/republican conclusion based on that. They might come to it based on flawed logic or thinking one thing to be the case when it really is not, but I'd still want these people to vote. Because if they constantly vote Democrat, and the democrats don't work out for them, they might look into why that is or look into the possibility of voting the other way.

As well, the point I made about referendums, that you can't vote on a party line for are there in a lot of states. And if folks go in just to vote for the party line, they'll still be able to vote on those issues.

[HibachiDG]

EDIT: Yea, definitely meant this post as a new thread.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by Doug Graham
They might come to it based on flawed logic or thinking one thing to be the case when it really is not, but I'd still want these people to vote.

I have never once said that I do not want these people to vote.

I wish voter turnout would increase, but not at the expense of a voter simply wasting his or her vote. And if that vote is going to be wasted, then that is when you are cheapening the lives of our founding fathers by not fully utilizing your right to vote (the opposite of what Bob tried to express, by encouraging even those uninformed to get to the polls).

[catman]

I concur with the thought that voters should be informed about the candidates they are voting for. I do not vote straight party tickets in any election and pick the candidate that I feel will represent my values and interests best in each race, as I did this morning when I voted.
If people would take a few minutes to familiarize themselves with the candidates and their positions, based on study of their stances on the issues that the voter feels are important, we would have a lot fewer problems on election day. The campaign ads do not do much to endear any of the candidates to me. They have become to negative and focus too much on what this candidate might do to hurt me as opposed to what this candidate will do to help move the country/state/county/city forward.

[KevinBeane]

There's no shame in voting a straight party ticket if you believe one party's platform clearly represents your feelings more than the others. This is particularly true when talking about Democrats vs. Republicans. At the local level, these platform differences might not mean much, but on a state and national level, I vote a straight party ticket every time and have absolutely no qualms about doing so. Unless you live in Georgia and are represented by Zell Miller, if you're a liberal, you can take for granted that the Democrat is gonna be more in line with you than the Republican, and if you are conservative, vice-versa.

Or perhaps the point is, shame on you if you are not a centrist/moderate.

[The Pirate Bob]

Tobynosker,

You have stated several times in different posts on here that in my original post I was "encouraging even those uninformed to get to the polls".

Where in the hell do you see that anywhere in what I posted? Don't put words in my mouth or twist my words on such an important sincere topic as this, please. I never said that or implied that. The reason we all have "Write in votes" is for people to make an informed statement that they don't approve of either of the main parties nominated candidates and rather than be left out of the process and not voting, they may still go voice their opinion.

I and others have begun a whole movement across the country for people to do just that.........instead of voting for the corporate owned politicians of the Rep. and Dem. parties, to get out and vote for any good 3rd party candidate or write in a vote for someone else of their choice.

Democracy implies automatically that to be successful people need to take the time to be informed. That is a totally different discussion from anything I said or implied in my original statement.

On my ballot today there are 38 different offices and propositions to vote for. If someone cant find one thing on theirs that has meaning to them and affects their life, then they must be a hermit in a cave.

Just my opinion. Peace and love. NOW, let's go vote if we haven't already. As I said before, good people have given their lives so we can be able to do that!

[tobynosker]

I apologize Bob for misinterpreting or misrepresenting anything that you have said.

And I appreciate the people like you and others who encourage folks to get out and vote on Election Day.

In 2004, over $350 million was spent on get-out-the-vote campaigns.

Yet, I wish that $350 million would have also been spent on educating those individuals who for some unbeknownst reason need that extra encouragement to get out and vote.

And, unfortunately, I believe too many uninformed voters simply waste their votes by not taking the time to educate themselves and making a well-informed decision on what "good people have given their lives" up for.

Again, I apologize and I hope there are no hard feelings.

[Ellis]

I don't even think that the masses should be allowed to vote. I know that this is unrealistic because it could open the doors to major corruption from the government, but there is no way that the people should vote. (I'm not saying that they shouldn't be free, I am just saying that they shouldn't be able to elect our officials.)

The masses are just too quick to judge things and don't know enough information to make any kind of intelligent decision. What we really need is a group of writers, philosophers, and highly experienced politicians who have access to all information and come together as a group and agree upon the members of the House, the Senate, the President, etc.

The majority of people just don't know enough about politics. We don't know what is really going on in the world. The government hides stuff from us. They know stuff that we don't. We need just a group of wise and reasonable people who have all of the information and elect the people for office.

I know this is a very general statement, that will never happen, and I include myself in the group in the group that shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's just that history has shown that the masses react too fast and never know the whole story when it comes to judging things.

[catman]

There's no shame in voting a straight party ticket if you believe one party's platform clearly represents your feelings more than the others. This is particularly true when talking about Democrats vs. Republicans. At the local level, these platform differences might not mean much, but on a state and national level, I vote a straight party ticket every time and have absolutely no qualms about doing so. Unless you live in Georgia and are represented by Zell Miller, if you're a liberal, you can take for granted that the Democrat is gonna be more in line with you than the Republican, and if you are conservative, vice-versa.

Or perhaps the point is, shame on you if you are not a centrist/moderate.
Here in Iowa, several of the State offices have candidates running unopposed. A "straight-party" ticket would not allow a vote in some of those races. Voting "straight-party" does not allow you to write-in a candidate in those cases.
As I said, I vote for candidates, based on their stances on issues I find important, not just because they have a D or R beside their names on the ballot.
By the way, I can appreciate what you are going through as a liberal in Georgia. Very few of you exist.

[buckeyefan78]

I don't even think that the masses should be allowed to vote. I know that this is unrealistic because it could open the doors to major corruption from the government, but there is no way that the people should vote. (I'm not saying that they shouldn't be free, I am just saying that they shouldn't be able to elect our officials.)

The masses are just too quick to judge things and don't know enough information to make any kind of intelligent decision. What we really need is a group of writers, philosophers, and highly experienced politicians who have access to all information and come together as a group and agree upon the members of the House, the Senate, the President, etc.

The majority of people just don't know enough about politics. We don't know what is really going on in the world. The government hides stuff from us. They know stuff that we don't. We need just a group of wise and reasonable people who have all of the information and elect the people for office.

I know this is a very general statement, that will never happen, and I include myself in the group in the group that shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's just that history has shown that the masses react too fast and never know the whole story when it comes to judging things.

Keep fightin' Ellis. :thumbup:

[Ellis]

Keep fightin' Ellis. :thumbup:
Do you agree with me though? Or do you at least see where I am coming from?

[buckeyefan78]

Do you agree with me though? Or do you at least see where I am coming from?

I see where you are coming from but I don't agree with you.

I'm a Marxist at heart anyway so...:lol:

[Ellis]

I see where you are coming from but I don't agree with you.

I'm a Marxist at heart anyway so...:lol:
Well it looks like I will get no help, if anyone decides to debate this one. That's ok though because I am used to it :D

[catman]

I agree to a point, Ellis. Uninformed voters are poor voters. Those who are swayed by a pretty face or slick campaign should not vote. Voters need to take the time to educate themselves on the candidate and his/her stances on certain issues that are important to that particular voter (no I will not attempt to bias anyone's opinion on what issues are important -- that is to be determined by each individual). These voters will elect good candidates, those that will do their jobs by authoring bills that will help move the country forward, not just rubber-stamp the bills that others write or not show up to vote on those bills at all.

[Ellis]

I agree to a point, Ellis. Uninformed voters are poor voters. Those who are swayed by a pretty face or slick campaign should not vote. Voters need to take the time to educate themselves on the candidate and his/her stances on certain issues that are important to that particular voter (no I will not attempt to bias anyone's opinion on what issues are important -- that is to be determined by each individual). These voters will elect good candidates, those that will do their jobs by authoring bills that will help move the country forward, not just rubber-stamp the bills that others write or not show up to vote on those bills at all.

I think of it on a larger scale though. I agree with what you are saying about uninformed voters, but overall, the masses just jump on bandwagons and/or allow things to happen that make no sense. Just look at American history... Salem witch trials, slavery, black prejudices, Japanese POW camps. We think of the American people as these great people who are caring, but yet we are the same people who backed all of that stuff for at least part of our history, if not the majority of it. And those are only a few examples from American history. I am not saying that American people are bad people. This stuff happens/happened everywhere. I just don't know how people can let this kind of stuff happen. We need just a core of reasonable,smart, and informed people making our decisions.

[KevinBeane]

How about this as a compromise, Ellis?

How about getting "licensed" to vote? Go through some kind of class, take some kind of test to prove you understand the issues? I think that would be better than denying the masses the right to vote entirely. At any rate, as you said yourself, taking away the right to vote would remove accountability of our officials and lead to incredible corruption (even more than we have now), and that's a bigger problem, IMO, than uninformed voters.

Catman,

Just to clarify, I don't live in Georgia, and I understand it's impossible to vote a straight party ticket in some cases, nor am I saying that you ought to. I was addressing the earlier implications (I already forget if it was Doug or Toby, or both) that voting a straight party ticket is indicative of blind faith or ignorance. At least, that's how I took it.

[KevinBeane]

Damn it, I meant to "quote" Ellis and instead I "edited" Ellis and wiped out his post. I think I restored it. If things look funky now, it's because of that sorry. I did that to Catman once before too. Errr! (slaps self). Pay attention!

[buckeyefan78]

I think of it on a larger scale though. I agree with what you are saying about uninformed voters, but overall, the masses just jump on bandwagons and/or allow things to happen that make no sense. Just look at American history... Salem witch trials, slavery, black prejudices, Japanese POW camps. We think of the American people as these great people who are caring, but yet we are the same people who backed all of that stuff for at least part of our history, if not the majority of it. And those are only a few examples from American history. I am not saying that American people are bad people. This stuff happens/happened everywhere. I just don't know how people can let this kind of stuff happen. We need just a core of reasonable,smart, and informed people making our decisions.

Let me guess Ellis: you hated the French Revolution. :lol:

[catman]

How about this as a compromise, Ellis?

How about getting "licensed" to vote? Go through some kind of class, take some kind of test to prove you understand the issues? I think that would be better than denying the masses the right to vote entirely. At any rate, as you said yourself, taking away the right to vote would remove accountability of our officials and lead to incredible corruption (even more than we have now), and that's a bigger problem, IMO, than uninformed voters.

Catman,

Just to clarify, I don't live in Georgia, and I understand it's impossible to vote a straight party ticket in some cases, nor am I saying that you ought to. I was addressing the earlier implications (I already forget if it was Doug or Toby, or both) that voting a straight party ticket is indicative of blind faith or ignorance. At least, that's how I took it.

I agree with what you've said here. However, one of the major parties would likely have serious objections to your proposal (I'll not mention which one, but it is the one that claims to be for the little guy), IMO.
And, by the way, if you see that you've hit "edit" rather than "quote" you can just hit the cancel button, rather than the save button below. That has saved me from having a problem of this nature.

[KevinBeane]

Salem witch trials, slavery, black prejudices, Japanese POW camps. We think of the American people as these great people who are caring, but yet we are the same people who backed all of that stuff for at least part of our history, if not the majority of it. And those are only a few examples from American history.

The problem is, Ellis, that it wasn't just "the people" backing those things, but also no shortage of intellectuals, philosophers, and experienced politicians.

The only cure for the backing of crazy things like that is time. That's why I am optimistic about the future. I am convinced, for starters, that our laws and attitudes surrounding homosexuality will, in 100 years tops, look as ridiculous as the laws and attitudes regarding blacks of 100 years ago look to us now.

Unfortunately, we don't get to live decade to decade, we have to live day-to-day, so it often seems like progress is halted and troubling "common sense" and bandwagon embraces of crazy things we be so forevermore, and those that we don't agree with will have all the power forevermore, But it won't.

[The Pirate Bob]

My turn to jump back in......nice we got the old juices flowing!

First: Tobynosker, no, no hard feeling my friend. Just felt I had to correct you. We have all many times read more into something than we should have.

Second: Ellis, you are so right and our founding fathers realized that. That is why we have a Representative Democracy, not a straight Democracy. None of us have the time or intelligence to understand all the issues and problems facing our country and the world. So we try our best to vote for someone who represents closely things we believe in, and pay them to go to Washington and learn and do the right thing for us.

I know, even that takes some effort on our part and alot of us don't put much effort in it. But in their wisdom, our forefathers created enough checks and balances within the 3 branches to help assure even with some bad choices, we can correct alot before something too bad happens. As much as the system takes time to work sometimes, it still has done pretty dang well for us so far.

Thirdly: It is that same checks and balances, and the fact that we can have a peaceful revolution every few years through our voting process, that we can correct the wrong and distasteful things that have gone on in our country, change leadership, and bring back to the center what the left and right extremists sometimes drift us off into. When it comes right down to it, even though it takes longer than you and I would like, the American people do finally react to the wrong and injustice, and the good within the majority of us rises to the top; through the voicing of our opinions we eventually can and do make the necessary changes.

It truly amazes me how our founding fathers had the insight and forsight to create such a great system that can protect itself from itself. God how I wish I could have been there when they discussed and debated all the ends and outs of that. Hard to believe they just got lucky. How truly smart and/or enlightened some of them were!

[Ellis]

The problem is, Ellis, that it wasn't just "the people" backing those things, but also no shortage of intellectuals, philosophers, and experienced politicians.

The only cure for the backing of crazy things like that is time. That's why I am optimistic about the future. I am convinced, for starters, that our laws and attitudes surrounding homosexuality will, in 100 years tops, look as ridiculous as the laws and attitudes regarding blacks of 100 years ago look to us now.

Unfortunately, we don't get to live decade to decade, we have to live day-to-day, so it often seems like progress is halted and troubling "common sense" and bandwagon embraces of crazy things we be so forevermore, and those that we don't agree with will have all the power forevermore, But it won't.

I see your point and I kind of agree with it, but not 100%. A lot of scientists, writers, and philosophers didn't back the things that happened at the times. It is just that the masses outweighed them.One example is the atomic bomb. I really think that when we look back on it 100+ years from now we will see it as incredibly inhumane and bad thing to have ever done. Robert Oppenheimer was against the using the atomic bomb and refused to help build bigger bombs after that. During slavery you had people like Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Rush (writer and founding father) who fought against slavery. I don't think the problems were necessarily because the philosophers, scientists, and writers were joining in, I just think that they were out numbered. Of course, this can get into real specifics, which of course will go back and forth. I am just saying that in general this is how it seemed to be. It probably wasn't like that in every case.

Imagine how much better our politicians would be if these were some of the people who chose them were people like Edward Osborne, Wilson Albert Ellis, All American Nobel Prize winners that are still alive, Steven Hawking etc. I would even throw Bill Gates in there.

Now that I think about, cut out experienced politicians from that group.

As for your compromise Kevin, I really don't like it, even though I am sure it would help and lean more to wards what I am getting at. I think the fairest way to do it is to have the smartest and most innovative people do the voting, or just let everyone vote. Those are the two fairest ways of doing it.

[HibachiDG]

How do we determine the smartest and most innovative people, though?

[The Pirate Bob]

How do we determine the smartest and most innovative people, though?

We give them a test before we vote for them.

Question 1: How do you pronounce "Nuclear"

lol...(I couldn't resist that one)

[Ellis]

How do we determine the smartest and most innovative people, though?

As I said, it is a very general statement I am trying to make and that question is one of the reasons that this idea wouldn't be able to happen. It is easy looking back on history who the smart and innovative ones were, but how do you determine who deserves to be in that group that are living right now?

The thing is, if you could somehow get the first group together, from then on out they could appoint someone else to take the spot of a person on the board who either died or is too ill to be on the board anymore. That would work, but as your question said, how would we ever determine who would be in that group in the first place?

[buckeyefan78]

but how do you determine who deserves to be in that group that are living right now?

How about those with money, the "correct" skin color, the "correct" religion, and from the "correct" family.

Hey, worked so far. :thumbup:

[HibachiDG]

As I said, it is a very general statement I am trying to make and that question is one of the reasons that this idea wouldn't be able to happen. It is easy looking back on history who the smart and innovative ones were, but how do you determine who deserves to be in that group that are living right now?

The thing is, if you could somehow get the first group together, from then on out they could appoint someone else to take the spot of a person on the board who either died or is too ill to be on the board anymore. That would work, but as your question said, how would we ever determine who would be in that group in the first place?

My position is that I don't think you can determine who gets into that group. I mean, even if we gave people a test on whether they understand the issues, Kevin's compromise, well, who decides what goes on that test? My biggest problem with Kevin's compromise is that, what if someone doesn't quite understand all the issues, but they trust that candidate and believe that when he speaks about the issues, he does a good job expressing his viewpoints and back up his arguments and they feel he would, if not agreeing with their mindset, at least be a good addition to the legislative process?

I'm against any notion of limiting voter access. We have this system that allows people to vote for any reason that they feel is important to them in getting out there to vote. I don't think we should start to come in and take that away from them. Calling it silly, ok, that's one thing, I just don't like the idea of who can vote being limited. I don't see much of a good reason for it.

You talk about the intelligent and innovative, but we've got a lot of intelligent and innovative people that do not get to show that. Are we to say they can't vote? What about people mired in poor circumstances, maybe they are not intelligent and innovative, but they might have children that they want to become intelligent and innovative, why should they have no say in the process?

[Ellis]

My position is that I don't think you can determine who gets into that group. I mean, even if we gave people a test on whether they understand the issues, Kevin's compromise, well, who decides what goes on that test? My biggest problem with Kevin's compromise is that, what if someone doesn't quite understand all the issues, but they trust that candidate and believe that when he speaks about the issues, he does a good job expressing his viewpoints and back up his arguments and they feel he would, if not agreeing with their mindset, at least be a good addition to the legislative process?

I'm against any notion of limiting voter access. We have this system that allows people to vote for any reason that they feel is important to them in getting out there to vote. I don't think we should start to come in and take that away from them. Calling it silly, ok, that's one thing, I just don't like the idea of who can vote being limited. I don't see much of a good reason for it.

You talk about the intelligent and innovative, but we've got a lot of intelligent and innovative people that do not get to show that. Are we to say they can't vote? What about people mired in poor circumstances, maybe they are not intelligent and innovative, but they might have children that they want to become intelligent and innovative, why should they have no say in the process?
I am talking about a very small list. Maybe like 25 of Americas smartest and most innovative people. The whole idea is that this group comes together and comes to an agreement on the people. Kind of like the electoral college, except smaller and they have a say on all of the major offices.

That is exactly why I said you either have to have this group, that I am talking about, or everyone has to be able to vote. Your post explains why you couldn't have it in the middle, which I agree with.

Maybe I am just getting confused where you stand by how you are going from Kevin's idea to mine, but I am just talking about a very exquisite list with only people who are in the top of the fields of science, physics, philosophy, business, and writing, which would conisist of maybe like 25 people max.

I am not undermining anyone in this idea. All I am saying that we let the people who are designated as the top of their field do the electing. If you don't go with this idea, you have to let everyone vote to make it fair.

[HibachiDG]

I am saying why you couldn't have it in the middle, but also trying to point out the flaws in picking a panel of folks like you're suggesting. How would you go about picking the 25 people max?

[Ellis]

I am saying why you couldn't have it in the middle, but also trying to point out the flaws in picking a panel of folks like you're suggesting. How would you go about picking the 25 people max?
Ok, that's what I thought you were saying, but I wasn't 100% sure.

As I said, you would pick the group by just looking at the fields of writing, physics and science, philosophy, and business and taking the people at the people who are on top of those fields. Of course how would you actually pick these people and determine who is on top of the field and deserving of being in the group? That is why it would never happen. There would be too much controversy and debate over who deserving. But, I think if you see the general idea of what I am saying (and not the small details and complications), it makes sense and would put better leaders in office.

[KevinBeane]

Just to clarify, I'm not REALLY proposing a voter test, or to disenfranchise anyone, I just like it better than Ellis's notion to disenfranchise almost everybody.

And again, the best and brightest 25 people would not be in agreement on most issues any more than the other 300 million of us. The only way smart people can save us is if they more or less all agree, and they certainly don't.

[catman]

Wouldn't it be nice if people would actually take the time to become more aware of candidates' stances on the important issues? I know this is a pipe-dream, but I'd like to live long enough to see the day when negative ads are removed from the campaign mentality.

[Richard the Lionheart]

The Senate used to be elected by the State Legislatures.

[Ellis]

The Senate used to be elected by the State Legislatures.

This is the best we got from you Ricky? I saw that you were replying and I was looking forward to an interesting post from the insight of Ricky. And all I got was a one sentience post? :D

[Tarkus]

Wouldn't it be nice if people would actually take the time to become more aware of candidates' stances on the important issues? I know this is a pipe-dream, but I'd like to live long enough to see the day when negative ads are removed from the campaign mentality.

I'm afraid you'd have to be immortal in your wait for that one, Cat...

[The Pirate Bob]

One of my greatest peaves is the meaningless signs and posters stuck in the ground up and down the 10 mile stretch of road I live on. I wanted to count them today before they start to disappear, but it was just too big a chore and I couldn't drive slow enough on that road to count them.

Not only are they such eye sores and pollute the desert environment, but they are such totally meaningless. Just a name, sometimes a pretty face, and even sometimes the whole goofy looking family smiling in the background. Obviously they aren't large enough to mention even one issue or what the person stands for whatsoever. Just a mindless waste of money and to me an insult to my intelligence. It's like they think I am going to vote for them because I see their name and face everywhere. It isn't a popularity or beauty contest.

The worst candidate for this was the guy running for county sherriff. He had a sign every few hundred feet all over the county. And even was standing outside my polling place when I went to vote with his care with signs all over it blocking the parking lot drive way. lol.......His opponent didn't have one sign up along the streets. You can guess who I voted for.

[catman]

I'm afraid you'd have to be immortal in your wait for that one, Cat...
Who knows? Maybe I'll refuse to die. Remember Methusala? He was 900 years old and still going strong. I may live that long as well.

[Tarkus]

Who knows? Maybe I'll refuse to die. Remember Methusala? He was 900 years old and still going strong. I may live that long as well.

Good luck, Cat...

I wouldn't have the stamina for puttin' up with that much er...aaah...um...stuff....;)

In other news, in a show that the voting process is alive & well:

Dead woman wins county commissioner's race
S.D. candidate gets 100 votes; official says voters knew she was deceased

PIERRE, S.D. - A woman who died two months ago won a county commissioner's race in Jerauld County on Tuesday.

Democrat Marie Steichen, of Woonsocket, got 100 votes, defeating incumbent Republican Merlin Feistner, of Woonsocket, who had 64 votes.

Jerauld County Auditor Cindy Peterson said she believes the county board will have to meet to appoint a replacement for Steichen. Peterson said she'll check with the state's attorney to be sure that's the process.

Peterson said voters knew Steichen had died.

"They just had a chance to make a change, and we respect their opinion."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15622299/?GT1=8717

[buckeyefan78]

And I thought the election went badly for the Republicans before reading this story. Hell, they couldn't even beat a dead woman in South Dakota.

[Richard the Lionheart]

This is the best we got from you Ricky? I saw that you were replying and I was looking forward to an interesting post from the insight of Ricky. And all I got was a one sentience post? :D

Never have any expectations when you see I've posted. You're bound to be let down somehow. :lol:

Anyway, I guess I was just lazily in trying to point out that the statesmen who designed our national government had the same kind of concerns you have now. They were worried about the passions and sometimes not so sound judgement of the populace. As someone stated, this is why we have representation in the first place besides the practical reasons. A long time ago, reps were suposed to "refine and enlarge" the public view, rather than parrot it and make up slogans like they do today. Also, you see how they originally designed the Senate, which was supposed to be a body of the country's most respected citizens, chosen by the state legislatures instead of the people at large. Then you would have the two branches checking each other, to make sure none got too out of hand.

Of course, the founders also put a high value on political power originating from the people. If you don't have this, then the government has no accountability towards the people it is there for in the first place, and you are just asking for trouble. People need to be governed by consent.