NObama?

Recently in an attempt to find out what people thought of the upcoming American elections, I decided to check out a popular poll on community art website, deviantART. This is what I find:

Anon: what’s with all the dems, are ALL young people liberals? ew. i hate people who vote for people who best match their own opinions or just appeal like a beauty contest, both. your supposed to vote for the candidate that will most uphold the constitution.every time i see an election poll i get nauseous, especially after hearing all of the "giggle, obama’s cool cuz he wants change" ish comments.

And thus begins a small debate about the nature of the constitution, liberalism and the right to vote.

Me: What's the point of upholding a constitution without rational thought or change. That would defeat the point of the constitution. Ideas, no matter how noble, lose all meaning when people refuse to debate them and improve them, if possible. It becomes a mere prejudice. "Teachers and learners alike fall asleep at their posts when there is no enemy in the field." - JS Mill.So when those evil, mislead young people vote for those who "best match their own opinions" or get excited over change, hell, welcome to democracy. If a lot of people want change, maybe that says something about the current government.

Anon: i disagree partly, while that is a noble concept, the problem is we have the Wrong type of people debating. people who care more about their own gains than what is best for the country they were Supposed to be serving. we elected these people because we as a country are no longer educated properly on our own political system. thinking about the constitution doesn’t work if you don’t First understand it, how it came to be, and why. our country isn’t a democracy, so your statement kind of proves my point.

Me: I agree that there's a lack of education regarding politics these days, though your reasoning followed to the logical end implies that certain parties shouldn't be allowed the vote. I agree that there are some rather stupid people in the world who need to be more educated on the standpoints they waffle on about, I wrote an essay regarding it once. However, even if it were made compulsory to attend a certain amount of education regarding politics, everyone would still have their opinion, and a lot of those opinions would be self-interested - No matter how educated. It's a shame, but it's the way things are.I don't believe in the state as a separate entity from the populace, that is why to me nobody's view should be stifled, nor their sovereignty removed because of their views. I put up with those that vote for rubbish reasons because of this equality.

Anon: i never said certain parties shouldn’t be allowed to vote, that’s a pretty big conclusion to jump to. i certain feel that people who are a leach on society shouldn’t be allowed to vote. i don’t care if they didn’t have a day of documented education in their life, that doesn’t mean they didn’t take steps to learn on their own, and doesn’t mean they aren’t smart. i like the concept of a system where you get points, and only people who actually achieve get votes. i.e. "your on welfare because your too damn lazy to get a job? well goodie, no vote for you." harsh, but would work wonders on the attitude of the countries youth.

Me: I know you never said they shouldn't get the vote, but you just did right there so it still stands. As you may have already guessed I'm a fan of JS Mill, who also came up with a points system. The more educated you were, the more votes you got because your intelligent opinion was worth more. I'd rather do that than remove someone’s vote entirely, making them unchoosing slaves. Well, it's arguable that we are such in any case, but even the semblance of having freedom of thought is better than being told your thoughts aren’t worth anything, and that others can think for you.So yes, I agree. Those that are too lazy to join society in any way shape or form shouldn't partake in societies decisions. It's very hard though to weed them out from those who are generally having a hard time and need all the benefits they can get, like a... I don’t know... cancer-ridden, jobless single mother of 12. >.> It's impossible to check out everyone, and check them out well. It's a fine line that I wouldn't like to go near, because the consequences of making a mistake can be disastrous.

Anon: i don’t like leaving a point system in the hands of the education process. most of it is currently funded and therefore controlled by the government, i wouldn’t even call going to school being educated anymore. i have heard many point systems, and ive liked some, and disliked some, but its a nice concept all the same. and on that note, if you cant support children, don’t have children. that should be common sense but apparently people didn’t get the memo. if a person has children and cant afford the child, don’t give them money for it, just take the child away until they get their life together, see how much the unemployed rate drops. charities exist for people who come down with a disease, as well. i see our current system as openly encouraging non-achievement, between our tax code and welfare. i don’t think we should have welfare to begin with, so i disagree fundamentally, i think private organizations should be left to take care of the small percentage of people in this country who actually have a reasonable excuse for wanting that level of assistance. i have no respect for most of these people and i wont pretend to, but i also wont pretend i don’t blame government schooling and our current tax code for the attitude of so many of the young people today. self-sufficiency/independence is dieing and its sad.

Me: I didn't mean an example where they couldn't support their children from the off, sorry I was vague. I meant, if you could fully support 12 children, but then suddenly out of the blue, you get seriously ill, your wife or husband leaves you, takes the money and leaves you to foot the bill, then suddenly you can't look after them. Situations similar to this could happen to anyone regardless of their dependency.I think perhaps it's best to have a constantly changing state. Say every 50 years or so the policies fluctuate between social welfare and the rejection of a nanny state, that way social welfare could still get to most of those that need it, and people wouldn't develop a false sense of dependency because either they would be brought up without it, or before their eyes their worldview will vanish and they'll be left to fend for themselves.

Anon: 50 years is waaaay too long and therefore couldn’t work, but that concept, if done based on a need-to-change basis if that makes sense, could work very well, and its been proven in studies. though I still have no problem with having people fend for themselves, I think that small communities and the private sector does.. everything personal better than any government could hope to, and once again studies prove this, and i think it would apply just fine to charity programs. there is an extremely slim minority of people who hit a situation even close to the one you described (especially considering that its insane to have that many children in the first place), and privately run charities are more than enough to cater to these few peoples needs.

I decided to leave it here, as by now many people had joned in the debate and that I felt we wern't getting anywhere. The poll in question can be found here: http://kitton.deviantart.com/journal/poll/298456/