Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mao II who wrote (2254)	12/31/2000 7:59:56 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

M2, That's a very powerful read. Thank you so much for posting it.

To: Mao II who wrote (2254)	12/31/2000 9:24:08 AM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

and farmers might be better protected by voting rules that made their absolute number important even if they were geographically dispersed. Look at this election result through the lense of the color-coded map of results by county. It gives an interesting perspective. It is hard to argue that farmers would be better off by changing the system. The competing interests of personal freedoms, personal rights, property rights, states' rights, & federal rights will not be addressed by a direct vote for the presidency. Most of the issues raised in the article are ideological differences. Most of those issues are only becoming sharper in focus due to a lack of clarity in the constitution. Some might argue it is because the majority of the people do not like the restraints of what used to be considered the larger good (i.e. the old social values). In other words, the differences need to be worked out by compromise. The tendency to litigate every detail and codify each aspect of society is actually reducing freedom. We surely do not want to allow direct votes to determine levels of taxation, for instance. Presently 95% of all taxes are paid by 50% of filing taxpayers (not 50% of the population). A direct vote might require 50% of taxes to be paid by 50% of the people, thus reducing the tax burden of the rich! If I were in the top half of wage earners in the country I'd be tempted to vote to protect those earnings. Thanks for the post!