The Fair Vote

The right to vote and how we vote is NOT A MATTER OF GEOGRAPHIC-ACREAGE!

It is a matter of Civil Rights as expressed-by-law, which should be learned in High School.

And this debate here shows how badly Civics is being taught (if at all) in our schools ... !

 

But a Replicant controlled SC will refuse to consider the matter. Which is why successive Replicant administrations have "stacked" the Supreme Court.

Fundamentally, I question the right of lifelong tenure on the SC. Ten/fifteen years is long enough, and then they are replaced ...

 

in case you missed it... you already replied to me (post #9)...

it was a tad more coherent than the recent post #25

 

France is a "state" that is a member of the European Union.

Which is in "Europe". Want me to show you on a map ... ?

 

kool, three replies to the same post...

reminds me of mutha n law when she came down with alzheimers...

best memories of her

 

So long as the popular vote to secede is recognized as legitimate, I'm all for it too. Otherwise popular vote is just a scheme to oppress political minority regions that hold unpopular cultural values.

 

Secede from the union of states (called the UNITED STATES) would be immensely inconsiderate economically.

Just as unintelligent as thinking that state-rights overshadow the inherent rights of a democratic-republic* as regards political representation.

The union is not just a map-of-states, it is the economic infrastructure of a market-economy. From which any "state" would then secede and suffer the consequences of custom-duties likely to diminish dangerously "interstate trade". In some American states it would lead to generalized poverty as subventions would be eliminated. The Federal Government not only taxes but it invests!

Meaning in most smaller states it would be tantamount to Economic Suicide ... and I doubt even the Replicants would dare go that far with their manipulations ...

*From the on-line dictionary here, two IDENTICAL definitions:

 

Theres a lot of things that The People could unwisely pass with a popular vote. That wasn't the point... Do you support secession being legitimate (wise or not) if The People popularly vote to secede? Or does their vote not count?

 

I find that comment highly unintelligent.

So you must tell me why the vote of the majority in any true democracy is dangerous as regards the rights of the minorities. Popular-Voting is the principal expression of the people's will in any functional democracy - regardless of how well or not it may work in a country.

What has happened in the US is that presidential debates do not get into the nitty-gritty of what is meant by "privileged status" - which is the cleavage between sections of the population and is principally (though not solely) conditioned by insufficient upper-income taxation. To such a point where some live in hovels and the others in comparable palaces.

As I never fear restating. There has been a WattsOne, and if we continue as we do with our inherent Income Disparity there WILL BE a WattsTwo*. And this latter will not be restricted to Los Angeles ....

*What people like you suffer, insufficiently educated in world-history, is the fact that the Tsar of Russia was overturned because of the abject poverty of "his people" throughout the country. This was the historical trigger that brought Communism to Russia - and it took nearly half a century to get rid of it!

 

A JUST DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC

Even if that "say" modifies the intrinsic value of the vote leading to such aberrations as popular-vote winners actually losing the presidential vote in the EC?

I am not saying that we do away with the EC. Yes, it was established in 1812 as an Amendment. It will be a Congressional Horror-story getting rid of that Amendment to the Constitution. But nothing prevents the amendment of an amendment.

That is, nothing prevents Congress from voting - as measure to protect meaningful unmanipulated elections - that only the popular-vote be only employed in the state and reported to Congress for Congressional and Presidential votes. Which would mean, then, that for state-representatives to Congress Gerrymandering (at that level) would have to go as well.

The state could then elect its state-representatives (to state-offices) in any manner they want without interference from the Federal Government.

And we'd be back (at least at the national level) to the true-values intrinsic to a democratic-republic that we should be but are not presently ...

NB: There will still be the problem at the state level of Civics Education that is clearly insufficient as numerous studies have observed.

 

I'm wondering if Civics Education should not be made a state-requirement nationally. But I am unsure how we could get that through Congress* at present.

Anyway, hoping that the Supremes will do it is clearly beyond hope ...

*The Replicants would obstruct in any way they could. And with the present majority in the Senate, it would no be difficult.

 

Texas can go alone economically and bring smaller states with it, its obvious you want to bully smaller states, so why not just say that?

 

It is and obviously some people in this thread never took it.

 

No, it is impossible to secede from the UNITED states.

Of course, some people-in-charge could provoke it - and the PotUS would authorize the National Guard to take control. (And if that did not work he'd order the Army in. That will work.)

Then watch the perpetrators seek anxiously their accelerated-exit from the US* ...

*With a US passport, good-luck on that one ... !

(PS: You writing the plot-plan for a Hollywood movie? ;^)

 

So you dont want democracy..?

The more you post, the more it sounds like you want a dictatorship in the USA, why?

 

Let’s use 10% as an easy number to work with. 10% on all purchases for the working poor, about $16,000, leaves them with $14,400. 10% on the wealthy, let’s say $120,000 (though that’s more upper middle class), leaves $108,000. The working poor are missing that ten percent far more than those at the top.

 

It's still 10%. and with standard deductions it drops way down on the poor. the upper middle pays 8%, poor now pays 3%.

anyway, we can agree to disagree. neither option vote/tax is going to change.

 

If everyone pays the same, as is the idea with the fair tax (flat tax), there are no standard deductions. It’s all paid at the register.

 

if....

it's all hypothetical.

 

Is that not the goal of the Fair Tax?

 

That graphic should be pinned at the top of this forum.

 

So far all I see is deep blue states signing onto the compact, some light blue, but no red states nor any swing states. This seems being that is the case to have a very partisan slant to it. I do agree, Constitutional wise, no problem. But I also view this as a way to get away from being a union of the several states. Getting away from being a representative republic to becoming a direct democracy.

Also, state legislatures can pass and or join the compact, they can also withdraw from it depending on who controls the state legislature. I'm positive that those states who have joined the compact, if the election looks like the democrat would win the electoral college, but not the popular vote would immediately withdraw.

I can also imagine how the people of one state would howl at awarding their states electoral votes to a candidate that didn't win their state. Especially if that's states electoral votes would have made a difference. That could be disastrous to which ever party controls that state's legislature.

I do think there are fairer ways to deal with this along with keeping us a nation of the several states and not going the pure direct democracy way eliminating being a representative republic.

But with the polarization and ultra high partisanship today, the all or nothing mentality of our political parties, the my way or the highway approach, neither party will be willing to even listen.

 

I would be comfortable with everyone contributing something. But as stated earlier, i'm also comfortable with the current progressive system.

What I'd personally like to see is a small vat, say 3% hits everyone equally, isn't overwhelming, generates huge returns. The cbo projected revenue at 5% is below.
https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52285
found that in 30 seconds of googling, but it does seem to support the revenue increase.

We're off topic here and my thoughts were formulated based on zero economics experience or education many moons ago after a few beers and some tequila, so obviously what I say is 100% spot on. I'd prefer a small 3% vat, add in a 2% increase on fica contributions with no cap. I'd also make capital gains progressive and close disbursement loopholes for business.

I probably wouldn't get many votes. (especially if I disclose my research methods lol)

 

That sounds like a tax system with more thought than I had given you credit for. I thought you were pushing the Fair Tax with one flat percent across the board, or maybe I’m misunderstanding the Fair Tax.

 

Well, not sure how to take that lol, but sorry for the confusion, I think there are variations of it all using the fair/flat namesake, many have discussed and some that abolish income tax, even some have been proposed. (Huckabee 08, Rand Paul last few years)

I honestly don't think the idea of abolishing income tax is likely so basically I'm thinking the common sense approach is to just tack on a federal VAT that's not overwhelming, shore up the SS/Medicare funding (which hits the wealthy pretty hard), eliminate some obvious loopholes that i'm utilizing myself.

Being as my alcohol fueled research methods should have some obvious downside I must be missing something, if i'm not then god help us because this could have been done a long time ago. I think the real issue is that the dem's essentially promised to not increase tax on the poor, and the gop essentially promised not to increase tax on the rich so common sense approaches don't exist.

The home run swing (which i'm not in favor of) is a large across the board vat but IMO it has too many cons.