RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>
>

Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>>
>>
>
> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.

So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
>
>So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.

Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
for representatives.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
>>
>> So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.
>
> Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
> for representatives.
>

Exactly right again!

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
>>
>> So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.
>
> Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
> for representatives.

Oh? Is that the mark of democracy? Not voting?

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank

>>>>Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.

>>>So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.

>>Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
>>for representatives.

>Oh? Is that the mark of democracy? Not voting?

User the power of context, I gleaned that shawn was discussing
legislating through referendum which would not require electing a
legislative body.

Does democracy have another meaning known only to you?

On 2023-02-22 10:02 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>
>>>>> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
>
>>>> So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.
>
>>> Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
>>> for representatives.
>
>> Oh? Is that the mark of democracy? Not voting?
>
> User the power of context, I gleaned that shawn was discussing
> legislating through referendum which would not require electing a
> legislative body.
>
> Does democracy have another meaning known only to you?

American Republicans for the past 20 years have been trying to rewrite
the definition of democracy that was in place since the 1820s. But I'm
not an American Republican.

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2023-02-22 10:02 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank

>>>>>>Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.

>>>>>So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.

>>>>Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
>>>>for representatives.
>>>Oh? Is that the mark of democracy? Not voting?

>>User the power of context, I gleaned that shawn was discussing
>>legislating through referendum which would not require electing a
>>legislative body.

>>Does democracy have another meaning known only to you?

>American Republicans for the past 20 years have been trying to rewrite
>the definition of democracy that was in place since the 1820s. But I'm
>not an American Republican.

You're taking about Jacksonian democracy which, from context, was NOT
what shawn was discussing. Oh: Jacksonian democracy wasn't even a
universal franchise, duh. Jacksonian democracy wasn't the kind of
political organization of society the Greeks envisioned.

Why do you behave like this, Johnston? Why can't you just participate in
a discussion without taking cheap shots?

On 2023-02-23 9:49 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-22 10:02 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>
>>>>>>> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
>
>>>>>> So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.
>
>>>>> Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
>>>>> for representatives.
>
>>>> Oh? Is that the mark of democracy? Not voting?
>
>>> User the power of context, I gleaned that shawn was discussing
>>> legislating through referendum which would not require electing a
>>> legislative body.
>
>>> Does democracy have another meaning known only to you?
>
>> American Republicans for the past 20 years have been trying to rewrite
>> the definition of democracy that was in place since the 1820s. But I'm
>> not an American Republican.
>
> You're taking about Jacksonian democracy which, from context, was NOT
> what shawn was discussing.

Actually the context was "6% of Americans believe China is a democracy"
and "so do the other 50% as 15b in campaign spending attests". Neither
of which were using the Republican redefinition of democracy that he was
attempting to assert as part of the Orwellian attempt to shape how
people think about politics by changing the words they use to talk about
politics.

Oh: Jacksonian democracy wasn't even a
> universal franchise, duh. Jacksonian democracy wasn't the kind of
> political organization of society the Greeks envisioned.
>
> Why do you behave like this, Johnston? Why can't you just participate in
> a discussion without taking cheap shots?

On 2/27/23 4:07 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2023-02-23 9:49 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-22 10:02 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig
>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>>
>>>>>>>> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
>>
>>>>>>> So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.
>>
>>>>>> Or not as  if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
>>>>>> for representatives.
>>>>> Oh?  Is that the mark of democracy?  Not voting?
>>
>>>> User the power of context, I gleaned that shawn was discussing
>>>> legislating through referendum which would not require electing a
>>>> legislative body.
>>
>>>> Does democracy have another meaning known only to you?
>>
>>> American Republicans for the past 20 years have been trying to rewrite
>>> the definition of democracy that was in place since the 1820s.  But I'm
>>> not an American Republican.
>>
>> You're taking about Jacksonian democracy which, from context, was NOT
>> what shawn was discussing.
>
> Actually the context was "6% of Americans believe China is a democracy"
> and "so do the other 50% as 15b in campaign spending attests". Neither
> of which were using the Republican redefinition of democracy that he was
> attempting to assert as part of the Orwellian attempt to shape how
> people think about politics by changing the words they use to talk about
> politics.
>
> Oh: Jacksonian democracy wasn't even a

Uh oh, Verman broke Johnston.

>> universal franchise, duh. Jacksonian democracy wasn't the kind of
>> political organization of society the Greeks envisioned.
>>
>> Why do you behave like this, Johnston? Why can't you just participate in
>> a discussion without taking cheap shots?
>

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2023-02-23 9:49 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On 2023-02-22 10:02 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
>>>>>>Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>:
>>>>>>>On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank

>>>>>>>>Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.

>>>>>>>So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.

>>>>>>Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
>>>>>>for representatives.

>>>>>Oh? Is that the mark of democracy? Not voting?

>>>>User the power of context, I gleaned that shawn was discussing
>>>>legislating through referendum which would not require electing a
>>>>legislative body.

>>>>Does democracy have another meaning known only to you?

>>>American Republicans for the past 20 years have been trying to rewrite
>>>the definition of democracy that was in place since the 1820s. But I'm
>>>not an American Republican.

>>You're taking about Jacksonian democracy which, from context, was NOT
>>what shawn was discussing.

>Actually the context was "6% of Americans believe China is a democracy"

No, Johnston. The topic had drifted. That's irrelevant to shawn's
comment in the earlier followup.

>and "so do the other 50% as 15b in campaign spending attests".

I don't know why you repeat that here. shawn said "or not". That indicated
disagreement. Does "not" have some other non-negative definition known
only to you?

>Neither of which were using the Republican redefinition of democracy

There is no "Republican redefinition of democracy". It's a Greek word.
The Greeks came up with the definition, which has to do with voters
making direct decisions on policy at a mass meeting without a
legislature making statutory law.

>that he was attempting to assert as part of the Orwellian attempt to
>shape how people think about politics by changing the words they use to
>talk about politics.

I believe you are talking about what you did and not what shawn did.

>>Oh: Jacksonian democracy wasn't even a universal franchise,
>>duh. Jacksonian democracy wasn't the kind of political organization of
>>society the Greeks envisioned.

>>Why do you behave like this, Johnston? Why can't you just participate in
>>a discussion without taking cheap shots?

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:52:52 AM UTC-6, shawn wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
> >On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> >> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
> >
> >So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.
> Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
> for representatives.

Which explains how Marjorie Taylor Greene keeps getting elected

She has been saying imho none of her caucus fought for the things she wanted whatever they were so at least there is democracy within her caucus

I am saying she is a terrible negotiator and i feel bad for georgians, even herschel walker would have done better than Greene

mk5000

All the Jedis’ lying dead, while the Sith grow roots
And if you try to speak the truth, they’ll Anthony Bourdain you
Hang you and use suicide to explain you
We don’t all need to agree, but how can you not see-==Chris Webby – Raw Thoughts IV

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 1:13:35 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2023-02-22 10:02 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> >>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
> >
> >>>>> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
> >
> >>>> So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.
> >
> >>> Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
> >>> for representatives.
> >
> >> Oh? Is that the mark of democracy? Not voting?
> >
> > User the power of context, I gleaned that shawn was discussing
> > legislating through referendum which would not require electing a
> > legislative body.
> >
> > Does democracy have another meaning known only to you?
> American Republicans for the past 20 years have been trying to rewrite
> the definition of democracy that was in place since the 1820s. But I'm
> not an American Republican.

That sounds about right.

A good example of this is Marjorie Taylor Greene's bonkers plan to separate red and blue states. One feature she has proposed is to suspend voting rights for blue state citizens who move to a red state.

I’m not sure EXACTLY what she’s trying to say about her deal with McCarthy because her communication skills are so poor, but it sounds like she’s saying she’s the only one who did NOT ask McCarthy for any concession favors in exchange for her vote?
She’s a LIAR.

mk5000

If you’re new to disrespect by your elected puppeteer
Well let me show you how to persevere
Just get up every time somebody knocks you down
And celebrate in front of people like they’re not around==Oddisee – Nnge

On 2023-02-27 4:24 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-23 9:49 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-22 10:02 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
>>>>>>> Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
>
>>>>>>>> So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.
>
>>>>>>> Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
>>>>>>> for representatives.
>
>>>>>> Oh? Is that the mark of democracy? Not voting?
>
>>>>> User the power of context, I gleaned that shawn was discussing
>>>>> legislating through referendum which would not require electing a
>>>>> legislative body.
>
>>>>> Does democracy have another meaning known only to you?
>
>>>> American Republicans for the past 20 years have been trying to rewrite
>>>> the definition of democracy that was in place since the 1820s. But I'm
>>>> not an American Republican.
>
>>> You're taking about Jacksonian democracy which, from context, was NOT
>>> what shawn was discussing.
>
>> Actually the context was "6% of Americans believe China is a democracy"
>
> No, Johnston. The topic had drifted. That's irrelevant to shawn's
> comment in the earlier followup.

The topic "drifted" because he made it "drift"

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2023-02-27 4:24 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-23 9:49 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-02-22 10:02 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
>>
>>>>>>>>> So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.
>>
>>>>>>>> Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
>>>>>>>> for representatives.
>>
>>>>>>> Oh? Is that the mark of democracy? Not voting?
>>
>>>>>> User the power of context, I gleaned that shawn was discussing
>>>>>> legislating through referendum which would not require electing a
>>>>>> legislative body.
>>
>>>>>> Does democracy have another meaning known only to you?
>>
>>>>> American Republicans for the past 20 years have been trying to rewrite
>>>>> the definition of democracy that was in place since the 1820s. But I'm
>>>>> not an American Republican.
>>
>>>> You're taking about Jacksonian democracy which, from context, was NOT
>>>> what shawn was discussing.
>>
>>> Actually the context was "6% of Americans believe China is a democracy"
>>
>> No, Johnston. The topic had drifted. That's irrelevant to shawn's
>> comment in the earlier followup.
>
>The topic "drifted" because he made it "drift"

Are you proposing to take shawn out back to be shot at dawn?

This is Usenet, Johnston. Topic drift is a feature. It's also the reason
why anyone puts up with your act. No one in real life would.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 04:47:24 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 2023-02-27 4:24 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-23 9:49 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-02-22 10:02 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/21/war-in-ukraine-defining-new-world-order-says-thinktank
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, 50% of Americans believe America is a democracy.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So do the other 50% ...as $15b in campaign spending attests.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or not as if America was a democracy there would be no need to vote
>>>>>>>>> for representatives.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh? Is that the mark of democracy? Not voting?
>>>
>>>>>>> User the power of context, I gleaned that shawn was discussing
>>>>>>> legislating through referendum which would not require electing a
>>>>>>> legislative body.
>>>
>>>>>>> Does democracy have another meaning known only to you?
>>>
>>>>>> American Republicans for the past 20 years have been trying to rewrite
>>>>>> the definition of democracy that was in place since the 1820s. But I'm
>>>>>> not an American Republican.
>>>
>>>>> You're taking about Jacksonian democracy which, from context, was NOT
>>>>> what shawn was discussing.
>>>
>>>> Actually the context was "6% of Americans believe China is a democracy"
>>>
>>> No, Johnston. The topic had drifted. That's irrelevant to shawn's
>>> comment in the earlier followup.
>>
>>The topic "drifted" because he made it "drift"

To be fair, I made a comment and you chose to respond which started
this sub-thread. So I didn't make anything drift as with no responses
to my comment there could be no drift.

>Are you proposing to take shawn out back to be shot at dawn?

My legs not broken so no need for that.

>This is Usenet, Johnston. Topic drift is a feature. It's also the reason
>why anyone puts up with your act. No one in real life would.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 23:24:29 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 2023-02-23 9:49 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>On 2023-02-22 10:02 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 2023-02-22 9:52 a.m., shawn wrote:
>>>>>>>Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:25:47 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>:
>>>>>>>>On 2/22/2023 9:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>Oh: Jacksonian democracy wasn't even a universal franchise,
>>>duh. Jacksonian democracy wasn't the kind of political organization of
>>>society the Greeks envisioned.

What >IS< a 'universal franchise' anyhow?

is it still universal if it includes any or all of the following?
- property vs non-property owners?
- citizens, permanent residents or aliens? (regardless of whether they
own property - which sometimes is out of the area they actually live
in particularly in municipal politics)
- minors?
- any other restriction? (for instance in native groups, you're not
considered one unless you were born to it though those married to
tribe members are often "naturalized" primarily to assure 'status' for
their children)

My point is that these things are not often as clear as we'd like to
believe they are - and I'm not AT ALL convinced all the groups listed
above SHOULD get the franchise.

Particularly in municipal elections it gets fuzzy since if property
owners get the right to vote and land is held by a private non-traded
corporation (for instance two brothers) do the beneficial shareholders
of that corporation get to vote?

And are there rare situations where a person might get TWO votes? (For
instance I know a former long time mayor who was given freedom of the
city which means he gets two votes: one in the town that gave him the
"freedom" and the other in the adjoining town he now lives in - and
he's on both community's voters list)

Obviously I'm pushing the edges but would you consider any of these a
"universal franchise" jurisdiction?

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 00:40:21 -0500, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>To be fair, I made a comment and you chose to respond which started
>this sub-thread. So I didn't make anything drift as with no responses
>to my comment there could be no drift.

Of course - if he hadn't responded you'd have been talking to yourself
and where pray tell is the fun in THAT? :)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> What >IS< a 'universal franchise' anyhow?

Generally understood in the modern day to be mentally competent adult
citizens who have not forfeited the franchise in the commission of a
felony. Minors are not included for the same reason we have an age of
consent. Citizens are owed some rights, and owe the social contract
some responsibilities in return. The franchise is both.

It is possible to expand the franchise to resident aliens and the like,
but I don't think it's a great idea.

I've heard good pragmatic anecdotes for reestablishing the franchise for
the incarcerated, not because they deserve it so much as it seems to
reinvest prisoners in the democratic process and keep recidivism down
when they get out. If there were studies to back it up, I'd reluctantly
vote in favor of such a measure.

-Micky

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 03:18:43 +0000 (UTC),
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
>> What >IS< a 'universal franchise' anyhow?
>
>Generally understood in the modern day to be mentally competent adult
>citizens who have not forfeited the franchise in the commission of a
>felony. Minors are not included for the same reason we have an age of
>consent. Citizens are owed some rights, and owe the social contract
>some responsibilities in return. The franchise is both.
>
>It is possible to expand the franchise to resident aliens and the like,
>but I don't think it's a great idea.
>
>I've heard good pragmatic anecdotes for reestablishing the franchise for
>the incarcerated, not because they deserve it so much as it seems to
>reinvest prisoners in the democratic process and keep recidivism down
>when they get out. If there were studies to back it up, I'd reluctantly
>vote in favor of such a measure.
>
>-Micky

You're totally missing my point. My point is that in this fragmented
era we no longer have a universally accepted definitition of what a
universal franchise is.

For instance:
- what should be the legal age of voting?

- who should vote? (Some would allow non-citizens, or non-citizen
property owners)

- voter registration - how should voters register to vote? What type a
ballot is acceptable? In particular to what extent should voting
outside election day be supported? (I'm talking advance poll, mail
votes, voting machines of the kind that do NOT give a receipt
indicating how one voted - though I personally am used to a paper
ballot system where votes are quickly and effectively counted thereby
making voting machines less useful)

- gerrymandering and voter suppression - those are buzzwords in
certain circles - what are the qualifications to vote and who is
excluded? (I'd argue felons who have successfully completed their
sentence should be able to vote) At the same time I've read Stacey
Abrams' writings and I think she is completely over the top though to
be sure I am deeply suspicious of certain southern states who by
making voting deliberately difficult have the same effect. (At the
same time both Trump and Abrams have claimed they "won" though I give
both the same degree of credence - none) (At the same time this is
also an issue in Canada where there is widespread - and in my view
unjustifiable - differences between the number of voters in an
electoral district to the extent that a fedearl vote in BC/AB is worth
roughly 10-15% less than a vote in QC since there are special rules to
ensure that when districts are reapportioned QC >NEVER< loses seats
while BC/AB never gain the seats that their faster growing populations
would dictate - with the result that Justin Trudeau has won the last 2
Canadian federal elections despite getting under 35% of the popular
vote and with another party getting more votes than him.

My point is that we as a society should have close to 100% approval of
what is right and wrong about our elections and how they should be
administered.

Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>What >IS< a 'universal franchise' anyhow?

>Generally understood in the modern day to be mentally competent adult
>citizens who have not forfeited the franchise in the commission of a
>felony.

What the fuck is Micky DuPree talking about? A test of mental competence
would be illegal under federal civil rights law and state election
codes. Also, no one in my state would be eligible to vote.

>. . .

>Minors are not included for the same reason we have an age of consent.

Age of consent is the age to marry without permission of parents, which
in the vast period of American history has been lower than the age of
voting franchise.

A minor in law is below a certain age depending on the law being
enforced. Right now, "minor" for the purpose of drinking alchohol is at
a HIGHER age than the age of voter enfranchisement.

>. . .

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 04:55:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
>>>What >IS< a 'universal franchise' anyhow?
>
>>Generally understood in the modern day to be mentally competent adult
>>citizens who have not forfeited the franchise in the commission of a
>>felony.
>
>What the fuck is Micky DuPree talking about? A test of mental competence
>would be illegal under federal civil rights law and state election
>codes. Also, no one in my state would be eligible to vote.

Heh heh - so a senator elected by a vote of 1-0 eh?

(The only time I have actually heard or read about that was in an old
comic book where the residents of this planet were all telepathic
except for some poor handicapped person whose telepathy had failed in
childhood and decided most elections by voting when nobody else voted
since they knew the result of the election the day before)

>>Minors are not included for the same reason we have an age of consent.
>
>Age of consent is the age to marry without permission of parents, which
>in the vast period of American history has been lower than the age of
>voting franchise.

I have an aunt who was married at 16 and one time when I was in the US
I was in a pub where a VERY young soldier in uniform was served
despite him appearing young enough that I'd bet $20 on him being under
21 and confidently expect to win - but then no barkeep in America
"cards" servicemen in uniform ever!

Being a non drinker in Canada reaching 18 (or 19 provincially) I was
far more interested in becoming of voting age than beer.
>
>A minor in law is below a certain age depending on the law being
>enforced. Right now, "minor" for the purpose of drinking alchohol is at
>a HIGHER age than the age of voter enfranchisement.

One thing they've done in our area which I think is interesting is
registering kids in grades 11 and 12 to vote. They don't actually GET
to vote till they reach 18 federally, 19 provincially but the thinking
is that if they hand out the voter registration cards shortly before
graduation they have an easier time getting them registered than
subsequently after graduation when they're all going their separate
ways.

(Mind you on the Canadian income tax form there is a check box where
checking it authorizes the tax authorities to give your personal info
to the voter registration people - this can sometimes cause problems
when underage people and non-citizens check the box. But then
immigrants to Canada get a special social insurance number - the US
SSID - which indicates their status and is reissued if and when they
become citizens)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 03:18:43 +0000 (UTC),
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>> What >IS< a 'universal franchise' anyhow?

>> Generally understood in the modern day to be mentally competent adult
>> citizens who have not forfeited the franchise in the commission of a
>> felony. Minors are not included for the same reason we have an age
>> of consent. Citizens are owed some rights, and owe the social
>> contract some responsibilities in return. The franchise is both.
>>
>> It is possible to expand the franchise to resident aliens and the
>> like, but I don't think it's a great idea.
>>
>> I've heard good pragmatic anecdotes for reestablishing the franchise
>> for the incarcerated, not because they deserve it so much as it seems
>> to reinvest prisoners in the democratic process and keep recidivism
>> down when they get out. If there were studies to back it up, I'd
>> reluctantly vote in favor of such a measure.
>
> You're totally missing my point. My point is that in this fragmented
> era we no longer have a universally accepted definitition of what a
> universal franchise is.

My definition may be about 25 years out of date, but that was the
understanding as I was growing up, and then into adulthood.

<snip>

> My point is that we as a society should have close to 100% approval of
> what is right and wrong about our elections and how they should be
> administered.

I gave my answer. We've never had 100% agreement, but we did used to
have a consensus, with the voting age lowered in the Vietnam War era so
that those who were drafted could have a say. There are some who only
see election laws as a means to leverage power for those already in
power. Some can vote against this (e.g., independent commissions for
redistricting, which happened in California and Virginia). But unless
the Supreme Court ever decides to see a civil rights violation in
gerrymandering (not in Clarence Thomas' lifetime), it's not like one
state can force another state to stop doing it.

But given that the term 'gerrymander' dates back to 1812, and Jim Crow
was legally struck down decades ago, it's obvious that there was never a
time when when we had 100% approval of what is right and wrong about our
elections. We did have something akin to a majority consensus for a
while in the U.S., but there are some parts of electoral politics today
that have echoes of antebellum sentiments.

-Micky

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 04:55:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>> Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:

>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>>> What >IS< a 'universal franchise' anyhow?
>>>
>>> Generally understood in the modern day to be mentally competent
>>> adult citizens who have not forfeited the franchise in the
>>> commission of a felony.
>>
>> What the fuck is Micky DuPree talking about? A test of mental
>> competence would be illegal under federal civil rights law and state
>> election codes. Also, no one in my state would be eligible to vote.

C'mon, you know what I mean. There is no affirmative test of mental
competency in order to earn the franchise, but if for some other reason
one has been adjudged mentally incompetent and under the guardianship or
conservatorship of another person or institution, then in most states
one loses the right to vote.

(I googled Brittany Spears as possibly the most famous example.
Evidently for part of her conservatorship, she was indeed ineligible to
vote, but California changed the law in 2016.)

>>> Minors are not included for the same reason we have an age of
>>> consent.
>>
>> Age of consent is the age to marry without permission of parents,
>> which in the vast period of American history has been lower than the
>> age of voting franchise.

True, but it's the same principle: one is born helpless, and must mature
before being allowed to do certain things: vote, marry, operate a motor
vehicle on public roads, etc. That one may be judged mature enough for
different things at different ages is not surprising, though one
difference is thought-provoking as you point out later.

>> A minor in law is below a certain age depending on the law being
>> enforced. Right now, "minor" for the purpose of drinking alchohol is
>> at a HIGHER age than the age of voter enfranchisement.

I drank at 18 back when it was legal. The youth franchise was a big
issue on the left during the Vietnam War. After a while, the right
realized that there wasn't a huge engagement in the youth vote, sadly.
When the war was over, there wasn't a big outcry when a lot of states
started clawing back the drinking age. On colleges, they've always
done it despite illegalities.

> One thing they've done in our area which I think is interesting is
> registering kids in grades 11 and 12 to vote. They don't actually GET
> to vote till they reach 18 federally, 19 provincially but the thinking
> is that if they hand out the voter registration cards shortly before
> graduation they have an easier time getting them registered than
> subsequently after graduation when they're all going their separate
> ways.

I think that's a great idea. My suspicion is that it wouldn't go over
well in a lot of states here, though.

> (Mind you on the Canadian income tax form there is a check box where
> checking it authorizes the tax authorities to give your personal info
> to the voter registration people - this can sometimes cause problems
> when underage people and non-citizens check the box. But then
> immigrants to Canada get a special social insurance number - the US
> SSID - which indicates their status and is reissued if and when they
> become citizens)

In these computerized days I would have thought that the date of birth
of an underage tax filer would cause their form to automatically be
kicked out of consideration by the electoral authorities.

-Micky

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 03:45:45 +0000 (UTC),
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> My point is that we as a society should have close to 100% approval of
>> what is right and wrong about our elections and how they should be
>> administered.
>
>I gave my answer. We've never had 100% agreement, but we did used to
>have a consensus, with the voting age lowered in the Vietnam War era so
>that those who were drafted could have a say. There are some who only
>see election laws as a means to leverage power for those already in
>power. Some can vote against this (e.g., independent commissions for
>redistricting, which happened in California and Virginia). But unless
>the Supreme Court ever decides to see a civil rights violation in
>gerrymandering (not in Clarence Thomas' lifetime), it's not like one
>state can force another state to stop doing it.

Of course. I'm more concerned about things like Stacey Abrams'
accusations and (despite one trip to Atlanta 35 years ago and Florida
in 2005) don't pretend to know enough about Georgia to judge whether
Election Day procedures are fair or not. (I have recently read her
mystery While Justice Sleeps)

Certainly I am troubled by claims it takes 6-8 hours to cast your vote
- I've never taken more than 30 minutes. (One of Abrams' prime
accusations is that staffing in predominants black voting districts is
lower to the degree that election day lines are MUCH longer - and if
so that is unjust)

As a Canadian I think our Election Day procedures are extremely fair
and quite efficient. On the other hand, I think federal seat
allocation between provinces is grossly unfair though am skeptical of
reaching a system I feel is just - and that BC and Alberta are
systematically under-represented to the tune of about 15-20% and
that's wrong. And the problem is in BOTH houses of Parliament not just
the Commons. I'd accept one house equally represented (i.e. the US
Senate model) but Canadian provinces run between 120000 and 14 million
which Quebec (8.5 million) being a sacred cow that NEVER loses seats
no matter what and the Canadian Senate formula being frozen in stone
based on 1867 populations.

Again I'm intrigued by the proposal to sign high school seniors up to
vote subject to them not actually voting until they come of age the
idea being that getting them to register AFTER graduation is more
difficult than when they're in a classroom. (Though the check box on
the Canadian income tax form helps a lot even though it once got me on
the voter's list twice)