<What I'm getting at on the subject of the evils of restricting the vote is this: You, stereotypically as a conservative, dismiss people who disagree with you as stupid and uninformed.

I think this is stereotypical of *everyone*.

If you had the power to create a test for intelligence and knowledge, you would inevitably slant it to select people who agree with you.

This is true, I am of the position that it would be ideal to have the utterly clueless and uninformed not be able to vote, however I know of no way to sort them out without the drawback of what you speak of, so I have to suppor the current system.

You'd define intelligence and knowledge in conservative terms. That may be a seductive proposition, but you're guaranteed to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Plurality and, dare I say it, diversity, represent the core strength of America.

They say that two heads are better than one, and many heads must be even better.

they say a lot of stupid things. Its easy to find exceptions.

If you achieve ideological homogeneity, you effectively have just one head doing all the thinking for the country. The very essence of a free society is disagreement and debate, out of which, in theory, will emerge a higher quality of thinking, one more likely to have considered all the angles.

that just one of those stupid theories, I mean the great unwashed masses aren't communicating ideas, and even if they were the predudices they have for one party or anothe rwill likely win out. You end up having no one thinking of all the angles, and each party accusing the other of being stupid and wishing the other couldn't vote.,

Not at all; just the opposite: They're as biased as the Republican Party's house propaganda organ, the Wall Street Journal. Any attempt to define "informed" must necessarily be ideologically biased.

hey look, I used to have to go to pakistan to find unbiased news.

You illustrated what I meant by "gerrymander by demographics"

ah yes! gerrymandering! Both paties to this! not aliberal/conservative issue!

with the two examples of selecting a subset of the population given the right to vote, based on some characteristic that can be measured in demographic terms: Military service, and money. Each one has an internal logic, of sorts, but each one selects for a relatively narrow outlook and value system, to the exclusion of all others.



Making military service the criteria selects for physical characteristics. By that criteria, Stephen Hawkings would be denied the vote,

you could put him to work on the next atom bomb.

The point is, the guys who pay the bills should have a little more say in things.

I don't think you necesarily countered what Tom said here, 'who paying for thegovernment gets the votes' idea is one based more on fairness rather then competency.

hmm. . . in fact thatt is how democracy on the stock market works hu? :-)

lets say I buy one share of mcrosoft, do I get the same amount of votes as bill gates?

One dollar, one vote. That's a very anti-democratic system, and it's not the system described in the Constitution.

Which brings me back to my basic thesis: Despite wrapping themselves in the flag and tradition, conservatives, in fact, have problems with our present form of government,

are you saying this is bad? that is to have problem with the current government? I mean don't liberals have a few problems with the bill of rights?

I'm surprised you didn't catch the reference to "$300-600"--that's the amount of the bribes we're receiving as Bush makes good on his promise to send us checks from the Treasury if a majority voted for him.

oh that is below you robert, come on!

I voted for the guy and I am not getting the 'pay off' I got the note that said 'you will not be receiveing a check' , then again chances are buck and you voted against him and are getting it. . . that one ass backwards bribe hu? :-)

but lets just look it a bit differently is it any differnt than 'bribing' by saying 'I am going to increase benefits for Social Security recipients' or "I am going to make your kids school better", or *any* campaigned promise. because thats what everything is, a promise that 'if you elect me, I will do _____ for you". if you consider that a bribe you are just as guilty as everyone else unless you voted for someone because they said 'If you elect me I will screw everything up and make things bad for you'.

I've never seen a more blatant and cynical attempt to buy votes. And now, as many predicted, the surplus is drying up, and this year's installment bribe is very likely the last anybody will see of it. But it served its purpose in getting Bush elected, didn't it?

ok, what does the government need with extra money laying around? a surpluss of my money in someone elses hands is BAD. I WANT it to dry up and come back to me.

-Justin Kelly