Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • There are many religious groups such as the Amish and the JWs that do not vote. Mandatory voting is a violation of the civil rights of anyone who deliberately chooses to not participate. It could even be argued that it violates the freedom of speech clause.

    • Urban residents want to treat the rural residents the way Britain used to treat its colonies and Ireland.

      There are vast areas of the US which would be rendered irrelevant and practically speaking disenfrancised if the metropolitan regions had all the political clout that the "popular vote" would give them.

      This would slowly but inevitably lead to laws which were written by people who were clueless concerning rural life.

    • Anything can be argued. And I would be perfectly fine with a constitutional amendment that mandated voting if necessary. You know, like, "voting being necessary to the security of a free State, all eligible citizens shall vote in national, state, and municipal elections".

      If someone would rather pay a fine then vote, so be it.

    • Your notion that anyone with a minority opinion is disenfranchised because they lose does not hold any merit on its face. There is always a minority opinion that loses in every election ever held.

    • And that mindset leads to the same kind of persecution which existed in Europe in the 1600s-1800s of those who were not conformists.

      The roundheads and the cavaliers of the UK, the beheading of Charles I of England, the rump parliament — all of these were the result of trying to force one's own views on others.

      It was said of Voltaire by Evelyn Hall that his attitude was — I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

      Even though I do not agree with the Amish and the JW, the idea of fining them or otherwise judicially persecuting them is repugnant to the mind of anyone who truly believes that people should have the right to hold views contrary to the majority view.

    • There are vast areas of the US which would be rendered irrelevant and practically speaking disenfrancised if the metropolitan regions had all the political clout that the "popular vote" would give them.

      This is pretty clear, what did I misunderstand?

    • Sorry, but you're making an ad absurdum argument. Let me know when Australia starts beheading people who don't vote and then maybe you'd have a point.

    • I was not talking about them losing elections.

      As metropolitan areas grow and as rural areas decrease in population, it will soon be possible for a candidate to completely ignore the rural voters and focus only on the metropolitan voters if the candidate can win a majority which is insurmountable by the rural population.

      This is why the American Colonies felt that the British parliament was passing laws which (in the colonist's opinion) were unjust. The American colonies were not given the ability to elect their own members of parliament but were still under the laws passed by parliament.

      If rural voters are hopelessly outnumbered by the metropolitan vote, it could lead to so much anger and resentment and a feeling of enslavement that history could repeat itself.

    • That sounds theoretically like it could be true but are we seeing that in practice in well-run democracies that don’t have electoral colleges? They seem as confused about why we have an electoral college as they are about why we have the health care we do.

    • Well, you literally said "practically speaking disenfranchised".

      Under the current system, all but the "battleground states" already feel "completely ignored". Even Georgia, Biden didn't visit the State until the week before the election. Since the margin of victory doesn't matter now, deep red or deep blue states can be completely ignored.

      Also, there is no equivalence between not having a vote (the colonies literally had no vote, it was called "virtual representation"), and having a vote that holds equal weight as every other citizen's vote.

    • From "amishamerica.com":



      Voting is typically not prohibited outright, and the decision to vote is left to the individual in most congregations.   Donald Kraybill notes that in the Lancaster community, “Those who vote tend to be  younger businessmen with an interest in community affairs” (The Riddle of Amish Culture, Kraybill p 275).  The approach to voting varies between communities.

      Note, the Amish also pay income taxes.

    • I think that the transference of power from the Parliament in London to the Parliaments of Wales, Scotland, and North Ireland was due to the amount of bitterness and resentment which had arisen within those regions of the UK.

      Tony Blair campaigned on the promise to bring about devolution of power.

      In many ways, the movie Cider House Rules had as its main theme that when rules are made by those who are themselves not those upon whom the rules are enforced that the result is harmful.

      The orphanage's rules were not made by the staff or the residents but by a board which did not have to live under those rules.

      The migrant workers lived in a place that had posted rules which had been composed by people who were not migrant workers and which they were unable to read because they were illiterate. The title of the movie is based on those rules.

    • Which states are battleground states changes.

      Hillary Clinton thought that she did not have to campaign in a state (I think it was Michigan) and ended up losing that state.

      A state that was once solidly Democratic may (and has) through time shift to being a battle ground state and then later becoming solidly Republican and the process has also gone in the other direction as well.

      States are only not battleground states because the voters have chosen to solidly back a candidate or a party but that can and has shifted.

      That is completely different from a situation in which the population of the rural communities are hopelessly outnumbered by the metropolitan communities. That is not the result of opinions or philosophies.

      It is the overwhelming size of the population of the metropolitan regions which "for all intents and purposes" renders the votes of the rural communities irrelevant.

    • Looks like Biden’s gonna win. Pennsylvania is going his way, his lead in Nevada is expanding, Arizona now looking good, he even has a small cushion in Georgia, etc.

      Key question is how long will it take for Trump to admit defeat? I don’t think he will. Hence the importance of Republicans to stand up and tell him it is over.

    • The Amish are heterogenous.

      There are progressives and strict traditionalists. I am aware that among the progressives many things including voting are permitted but under the strict traditionalists this is often considered a violation of the congregation's ordnung.

      Quoting from the Wikipedia article linked below:

      Because the Amish have no central church government, each assembly is
      autonomous and is its own governing authority. Thus, every local church
      maintains an individual set of rules, adhering to its own Ordnung, which
      may vary from district to district as each community administers its
      own guidelines.

      You conveniently ignored the fact that the quotation which you quoted implied that there are congregations which do not allow it to be an individual decision. The quote alleged that "most congregations" allow individual decisions but that means that there are some who do not allow it.

    • That is completely different from a situation in which the population of the rural communities are hopelessly outnumbered by the metropolitan communities. That is not the result of opinions or philosophies.

      It is the overwhelming size of the population of the metropolitan regions which "for all intents and purposes" renders the votes of the rural communities irrelevant.

      You continue to make this fallacious argument. The same can be said of any minority group. Should we give extra votes to green party supporters since they're an even smaller group than rural voters? And Trump received 70 million votes, that's hardly irrelevant.

    • The same can be said of any minority group

      Many who are not members of ethnic minorities support the rights of those minorities and are opposed to passing laws which coerce them. Do you support making English an official language and making it mandatory that all business be conducted in English? You want to make voting mandatory!

      I am opposed to making English an official language because although English is my first language and although the MAJORITY of Americans speak English unlike you I don't believe that it is right for the majority to trample on the minority.

    • This is probably a bit like how Puerto Rico and Washington DC feel... but they have a legitimate beef. Rural residents don’t really have the same gripe—they have voting rights as well as governmental representation.