Voting - A tipping point

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by KeyBoard_Warrior, Jul 13, 2012.

  1. I know we don't have many libs on this forum, but I am interested in everyone's opinion on a thread that is actually about politics.

    Do you think that there exists a tipping point at which the number of government dependents (entitlement recipients + government workers) reaches a point where the balance of the population becomes irrelevant to the electorate? When you add employee unions and fraudulent voters (straw man?) I believe that we are talking about a serious number of people who's vote is essentially being bought and paid for but the government (fed, state & local)

    No offense to any beneficiaries of govt assistance, but I would be interested in opinions on this and where we are historically regarding dependence on the govt.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012
  2. cutlass327

    cutlass327 New Member

    This is a good thought. I have been thinking we have been close to this if not at this point here the last few elections.. Of course, if you figure in the thought that the candidates are set up by both parties to get the one They want in office, then it doesn't really matter, because they will not allow a candidate that is truly good for our country to make it thru the primaries..

  3. The problem you mention may have got us to this point. I just feel as though we have a enormous population that are dependent on the size of the government that major changes to reduce the dependency will be difficult. To me this is quintessentially "buying the vote".
  4. Birddogyz

    Birddogyz Regular Guy

    Key Board, I agree with you. Most people vote for their own government support via hand outs, welfare, etc. not what is the greater good for the country.
  5. jonm61

    jonm61 New Member

    I'm not against entitlement programs, as long as they are used as intended. Welfare is not a lifestyle. Well, it is, but it should not be. It should be, as one of the many programs is called "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families". I have friends and family who have lost jobs and been forced to, temporarily, go on Welfare. Unfortunately, I also have a couple of family members who, in my opinion, are abusing the system and who I am ashamed to be related to.

    This problem is more complex than just "people bought by the gov't" and the parties not allowing candidates who will change things. Yes, many of the people receiving gov't entitlements will vote liberal because they believe that's who allows them to get those benefits. When it comes to minority voters in this category, though, if a candidate of their race is presented, many of them will vote for that candidate, even if it does go "against" their benefits, because they see it as a path to the future.

    There are people who are up and coming in the parties who are looking to make changes and I think their current popularity, if maintained, will get them into positions to turn things around. Unfortunately, it will be a decade or more before any of them get there; unless Romney picks one of them as VP.

    Personally, I think for Romney to win (not that he will be a whole lot better than what we have, though I do consider him to be safer) he needs to either pick a black VP to pull some of Obama's base who is dissatisfied but otherwise wouldn't vote for the "rich white guy", or he needs to pick an Hispanic VP, which is a voting block were already has some, certainly a lot more than in the black community, support, and which is also an Obama "default" voting block.

    Unions, as we've seen in the last few years, are losing both power and popularity. The states that have recently become "right to work" states, or that have forbidden the automatic deduction of member dues, have take a good bit of the money away, and with the money goes the power. The results of the recall election in WI demonstrate, to some degree, the popularity issue. Those two things will take some of the wind of the liberal sails.

    The tide of freedom and a return to the path that we should be on is surging. More and more people are snapping out of the trance and saying, "yeah, enough is enough". The problem, of course, is that we don't have real candidates at the top and until we do, or until we have a stronger Congress with a compliant President, there is only so much that can be done.

    The first thing we have to do is get all of the career politicians out of office. If they've been in Congress for a decade or more, they need to go. I don't care if they have the best voting record there, we need new blood and we need people who are there because they want to make the country better, not because they want the power of office. There are a few there from the 2010 elections. We need more. My Congressman, Rob Woodall, is one of the 2010 freshmen. He's a Republican, but he doesn't tow the party line. He thinks for himself and speaks for himself. He believes in the 10th Amendment and won't vote for anything that tramples on State's Rights. We need 434 more just like him, along with 100 Senators.

    I came with an idea a couple of years ago that I think we need to implement, but it won't be popular in DC or easy to do.

    First, I think we need Congressional and Judicial term limits. Limit Congressmen and Senators to two terms, with the ability to stay only by getting 2/3 of their state's/district's votes. They have to be that popular with their constituents, that they want this person to stay in office. That will force them to truly do what's best for their people if they want to keep their job.

    For the Federal judiciary, instead of lifetime terms, they should be mixed on each court, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Instead of all lifetime appointments, we make 1/3 lifetime, 1/3 8 years and 1/3 4 or 6 years. When one retires or their term runs out, they are replaced with someone who gets the same term limit. That way, we don't get stuck with activist judges for their entire lives, or at least not with so many that they would have a lifetime majority or sufficient numbers to pull the court in one direction all the time.

    Second, we need to dump this two party system. Really, I'd like to see the parties disbanded completely and we start over. I would also, or instead if the parties remain, add a "None of the Above" option to every ballot, at every level. If none of the above wins, then the parties get 90 days to present us with new candidates. The process is repeated until a person wins. We would need to set up some automatic measures to keep the gov't running during the process, in case it takes time to get a replacement.

    Third, we need to cut the salaries and end the lifetime benefits for Congress and the President. Do away with that "incentive".

    Fourth, we need to eliminate this 'corporate sponsorship' of politicians. That means overturning the 'Citizen's United' decision, not allowing anyone who has been in Congress to take a job with any corporate campaign donor for a period of 10 years after the end of their final term and making any televised political ads free on all channels, but limited in number and duration. That way, they get equal exposure and no TV network can run more for one candidate than the other.

    If the politicians are no longer working for the corporations, they must then work for the people. Not allowing them to take the high paying positions after leaving office, combined with the term limits, lower salaries and loss of lifetime benefits, will ensure that people are running for office for the right reasons.

    I'm sure there are other steps that will need to be taken, but this is the basic idea. I realize there would be Constitutional amendments involved; hence the difficulty in implementing the idea!
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2012
  6. My specific question isn't about justifying entitlements as much as it is about how such a large population of people receiving a govt check can shape the electorate. Is there a point where this number makes any real change impossible?

    Regarding Politicians, I feel that they should be paid at the mean income level of their constituency. They should get basic healthcare and a 401k while they are in office, and nothing when they leave office....maybe a watch. Also, I think that the US house/senate should be in session for a handful of weeks each year.

    As for the voting part, I think it would be nice to have some sort of choice vote so that I can vote for a third party ie libertarian candidate, but name Romney as my second choice. That way I am not throwing my vote away, helping Obama win, yet voting my conscience with my first pick.

    Edit - If this voting method were to lead to the rise of a communist party or any other left wing party started gaining seats, then the voting system would automatically revert to today's type of voting......we couldn't have that :)
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2012
  7. cutlass327

    cutlass327 New Member

    Sounds good to me! I know we started the 2 Presidential terms limit because the President in office at the time said we needed them, so it does take a strong leader to do it. Of course, eliminating the "incentives" and such would make that easier to come by...
  8. Eye_Peeled

    Eye_Peeled 8th Gen. Fla Cracker (not creepy though)

    I hope we are not already there. If we aren't there; we are directly on the brink. After what we have endured, with this country-wrecking president, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. The results of this election will answer the question: is the majority of the people all about "what can my country do for me" or "what can I do for my country".