Thanks for stopping by so consistently. I would like to thank you by posting about topics that you would like to see.
Is there something you would like to know? Leave a question in the comments here.
Is there a topic that you think I should become more familiar with? Leave it in the comments here.
Do you wish to point the way to others? Use the comment field.
Thanks again for reading.
ReasonableCitizen
6 responses so far ↓
Cari // June 25, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I would like to understand what is going on with the US-India nuclear deal. What’s really behind it, why folks are for or against it, etc. The bits and pieces I see look like it’s subverting NPT, but I can’t tell.
hd // June 28, 2008 at 6:44 am
I do not know the specifics either although it does seem that we are going against the NPT. Peaceful purposes only, right? It seems a strategic position lever as a counterweight against China and other provocative areas close by.
hd // June 28, 2008 at 7:24 am
I have had an idea and want to bounce it by you. It is not completely developed or particularly well thought through, but that is why I am laying it out.
Concern: There is no comprehensive national plan to move the country generally forward while avoiding the pendulous swings introduced by our two party political system.
Premise: I like to see people rewarded for their efforts while I think it is important for everyone to have their say.
Concept: It starts with the right to vote freely bestowed upon nearly every adult in the US. We see that at best only 55% of the eligible population cares to vote during presidential election years. Nearly half of the people do not participate and choose to have no voice. There are no requirements set upon voters other than having proper ID, signing up before hand and showing up. I think this system is OK.
However, perhaps there should be some incentive for helping the country move forward in an agreed upon socio-economic-political manner. It is a simple concept – those who choose to work in appropriate voluntary or professional efforts would be compensated.
Perhaps the compensation should be an increase in the weight of that individual’s vote. For example a person who does not work at all and does no volunteer work gets their regular vote (factor 1.0) as is the case now (if they choose to use it). Another person who works or volunteers in appropriate areas would have their factor raised according to their participation level.
There would have to be a logical upper factor limit and someone other than politicos would have to come up with the appropriate list.
Positives: For those who cared about it, this could provide some incentive to help themselves which in turn helps the nation along the general path forward.
Drawbacks: Poor people who do not work would lose voice in this system.
OK, that is it for now. Please let me know what you think.
ReasonableCitizen // June 30, 2008 at 5:52 am
HD,
That is an interesting idea. Yet, I might want to think about using a voting system to reward specific cultural behaviors. And I might also want to think about who gets to make the rules for additional votes. Would we see this politicized to the point that Republicans are awarded 1.5 votes and Democrats are awarded .98 votes because the number of Republican states are greater than Democrat states?
Or should net worth above a million dollars give you 1 vote for every million that you have?
I think property owners should have more votes that non-property owners and I think Federal employees not elected by law (Congress/Executive Branch) nor serving in harm’s way (some military personnel/foreign assignments) should not be permitted to vote.
The issue becomes one of verifying and confirming the eligibility of voting. This may be an arduous task.
Cari // June 30, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Whoa. Why shouldn’t Federal employees get to vote? There are 3 sets of feds: 1) staff of directly elected officials (ie. Congressional staff), 2) judicial appointees and their staff, 3) members of the executive branch. The third group makes up the vast majority of federal employees.
Explain to me why a secretary should give up her vote simply for working in the office of a federal judge? Or why the R&D portfolio managers that I know in DC should not be allowed to vote? This is a disincentive to do a civic duty, and I don’t understand why you would support that. Or are you trying to turn all of our federal employees into private contractors? (which is already too widespread in DC.)
ReasonableCitizen // July 2, 2008 at 5:33 am
About 14% of the workforce in the US earns a paycheck as a result of federal government. This creates a situation in which the voters are pre-disposed to desire the same or larger government. This is antithetical to keeping government smaller. I encourage you to search out a candidate that is willing to remark on which agencies and which staffing should be reduced. You will not likely find anyone willing to identify those government workers that should be let go.
I do not know the percentage of government workers that do not vote, but I would wager it is smaller than the normal population.
14% of the population is a huge amount and includes contractors and ‘grant’ jobs as well as military, postal, and civil servants.
How will we ever get the growth of federal government under control if 14% of the people vote for their pocket book?
Is it too much to ask that people who earn paychecks from the federal government NOT vote for federal representation?
Which is more fair: federal employees are not permitted to vote for federal representation or that federal employees are permitted to vote for larger government through a representative who wants more defense contracts and more federal incentive programs?