everythingquestioned

Everything Questioned returning soon with post-election topic, more contributors

austinbaird — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:55:29 -0500

Updated: After a brief hiatus around the election, Everything Questioned will return soon with a new monthly topic and an array of contributors to add to those established during the blog's test run. Have an idea of someone who would like to contribute? Any thoughts for a good question or topic to be discussed here? Contact Austin Baird by email or by phone: 919-829-4696.

Politicians can't be trusted, so amend the Constitution

austinbaird — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 05:04:05 -0400

Q: Given the exaggerated focus on the presidency this time of year, what is an example of another way to affect positive change?

A: Amend the Constitution to balance the budget

A big reason our nation has not only survived but also prospered (largely) for more than two centuries is that our Constitution limits government power, allowing individual freedom to flourish. The separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments prevent Washington — and the states — from trampling individual rights.

Even so, there are few limits on how deeply Washington can dip into our wallets or how recklessly it can borrow money. That’s how federal politicians have run up $16 trillion in official public debt.

Politicians cannot be trusted, so we need an institutional check to force Washington to live within its means: a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Every state but Vermont has a constitutional requirement to balance its budget. The federal government should, too. Balancing the federal budget would limit the scope of government programs to the ones we can afford.

In 1995, by a margin of 300-132, the House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to submit a balanced budget every year unless 60 percent of both houses authorized deficit spending for that fiscal year. The following year the Senate fell one vote short of sending the amendment to the states for ratification.

The 60 percent safety valve in that amendment would not have ended deficit spending. It would have made it more difficult, however, for Washington to add new debt — and required politicians to be accountable for new deficits by forcing a roll-call vote on each year’s budget.

So far, 32 state legislatures (including our own General Assembly) have petitioned Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of enacting a balanced budget amendment. Thirty-four are needed to force Washington’s hand. Perhaps profligate spending from the two most recent administrations will bring two more states on board and give the people a new defense against reckless indebtedness.

This is a response to a question about whether there is a moral obligation to vote, asked by Everything Questioned. Check back Friday to see who wrote this response, find more views at EQ's homepage, and share your thoughts through comments or by submitting a 300-word response to Austin Baird.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/everythingquestioned/if-you-see-a-problem-locally-and-can-fix-it-what-are-you-waiting-for#storylink=cpy

If you see a problem locally, and can fix it, what are you waiting for?

austinbaird — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:08:04 -0400

Q: Given the exaggerated focus on the presidency this time of year, what is an example of another way to affect positive change?

A: If you see a problem locally, and can fix it, what are you waiting for?

If the problems underpinning war, poverty and the economy were simple enough to be solved by one person or a handful of well-meaning people, they would already be things of the past.

Political theatrics staged by campaigns and perpetuated by media, talking points crafted by skilled writers relying on perceptions of pollsters, the money, the power, so much more – all coalesce to hide a fact that should be obvious: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are only human, and they lack the power to affect change as completely as they promise, let alone to fix the problems they won’t even talk about.

The world will change around them, and if the change is good, they'll take credit for it; if it's bad, the other party can take full blame. But in reality, the problems mentioned are cyclical and driven almost entirely by human nature.

It's natural to focus on distant, outward problems instead of ones that are uncomfortably close to home, but taking an unnerving look at the latter is the most effective way for meaningful change to take hold. A few examples:

The Economy: Thoughts of what caused the most recent economic calamities and the candidate most likely to help turn the tide can be useful, but thoughts of how the problems can be fixed locally are far more productive. Those able to support local businesses that deserve the support should do so; those without jobs or with jobs they hate should build their skill sets while idling so they can progress.
Poverty: If ending poverty is a top priority, choose a local homeless shelter or charity and do what you can to help. Maybe that's a donation of money, maybe it's giving volunteering time, maybe it's something else, but do something instead of wasting time talking about problems as if someone else will necessarily come along to fix them.
Income Inequality: The best form of welfare is giving someone a job and the skills needed to get a better job. The few fortunate enough to employ not only themselves but others should obviously keep that sentiment in mind when making hires and writing paychecks, but even people who aren't in that echelon can help by mentoring and training people who need it.

The bottom line is that if a person sees a problem they can fix in their own community, doing so instead of waiting for someone else to come along leaves everyone better off.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/EQ#storylink=cpy

Most problems are outside the president's control

austinbaird — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:20:16 -0400

Q: Given the exaggerated focus on the presidency this time of year, what is an example of another way to affect positive change?

A: Most problems are outside the president's control

Despite charismatic speeches promising change for our country, neither President Obama nor Governor Romney can single-handedly fix America’s problems. Every President faces forces beyond their control.

During the recent debate, a question was asked about gas prices. The price you face at the pump is influenced by multiple factors beyond the president’s control. Even with the help of Congress, our “pain at the pump” will not be alleviated by Obama or Romney.

In the same debate the candidates were asked about what they would do to enforce pay equity. While policies are in place to insure women receive equal pay for equal work, the issue needs to be taken beyond the scope of politics—the “magic powers” some wish to place on the Office of the President are not the answer.

A shift in attitude, roles, and responsibility are required to eliminate the problem of gender inequality, and specifically pay inequality.

A certain presidential candidate’s answer to the pay equity question was to allow women to leave work in enough time to cook dinner for their families. That is the exact wrong answer.

The most important thing we can do to fix gender inequality and insure pay equity is to recognize the important contributions women make to our society on a daily basis. Sharing responsibility and decision making in every arena of life, and putting women in roles that challenge tradition will put an end to the outdated idea that women should only deal with matters of children and the home.

That means pushing young women to choose careers that are outside the traditional, especially into careers with higher salaries. That also means electing women at all levels, and electing men who recognize that women must be part of our leadership, not as tokens, but as equals.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/everythingquestioned/more-attention-needed-to-the-federal-reserve#storylink=cpy

What issues have been ignored during this election cycle?

austinbaird — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:15:06 -0400

What is an issue that has been ignored during the election cycle that deserves more attention?

This question (full version here) was asked of a few groups across the political spectrum, whose responses have been posted below alongside an excerpt of an essay written amid the women's suffrage movement. There are countless more arguments to be made. Sound off in the comments section of each response. Vote for your favorite in the poll. If you're up to the challenge, send a response of your own that's 300 words or less to Austin Baird – the best reader responses will be posted, regardless of when they are submitted.

Criminal justice reform has to be at the top of the list

"Due to our get tough' stance on non-violent drug crimes, we are getting soft on serious crimes like murder, robbery and assault."

CONTINUE READING

–

More attention needed to banking policies of the Federal Reserve

"Where the next bubble will occur and when it will burst is impossible to predict. But it will occur, and it will burst. It is the invisible elephant in the room of this election."

CONTINUE READING

–

A return to states' right is needed sooner rather than later

"A key underlying issue is the balance of power between the states and the federal government. For decades, power has shifted toward Washington. With the federal government $16 trillion in the red, however, Uncle Sam can no longer afford that role. Inevitably, more power will revert to the states."

CONTINUE READING

This week's participants include the John Locke Foundation, Civitas Institute and the Libertarian Party of North Carolina.

More attention needed to the Federal Reserve

austinbaird — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:07:58 -0400

Q: What is an issue that deserves more attention than it has received from candidates during the election cycle?

A: The Federal Reserve

The most important issue to be left out of this election campaign is the role the Federal Reserve has played and is playing in determining the economy’s direction. In 2006 George W. Bush appointed Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman. It is primarily in this sense that Bush’s decisions caused the problems that President Obama inherited. But here’s the rub, and probably the reason that the Fed’s policies are nowhere to be found in this presidential race: Obama reappointed Bernanke in 2009.

Americans voted for change and got more of the same instead. The Fed chairman and his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, for whom Bernanke served as a Fed board member, have become the bipartisan wrecking crew of the U.S. economy.

During the Greenspan/Bernanke regime of the early 2000s the Fed held interest rates to around 1 percent, as new money flowed through the banking system. This money flowed into the real estate industry, primarily because of political pressure on banks to abandon traditional lending practices. These investments were not backed by real savings but were being fueled by credit created out of thin air. The policies of the Greenspan/Bernanke Fed caused a real estate bubble that burst, taking large portions of the banking and financial industries with it.

In 2008, to “fight the recession,” Bernanke, following his mentor, started the process over again and adopted the Greenspan philosophy that there is nothing wrong with the economy that massive infusions of cash won’t cure. He continues that policy today, promising to print $40 billion of new money a month, distorting investment markets and preventing a sound recovery.

Where the next bubble will occur and when it will burst is impossible to predict. But it will occur, and it will burst. It is the invisible elephant in the room of this election.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/EQ#storylink=cpy

A return to states' rights is needed

austinbaird — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:04:31 -0400

Q: What is an issue that deserves more attention than it has received from candidates during the election cycle?

A: States' Role a Key Question

A key underlying issue is the balance of power between the states and the federal government. For decades, power has shifted toward Washington. With the federal government $16 trillion in the red, however, Uncle Sam can no longer afford that role. Inevitably, more power will revert to the states.

This could be a good thing. Because states can’t print money, they have had to be more careful in how they spend it. It's a natural move for them to take more responsibility, just as a bankruptcy trustee might take over a business.

Look at health issues, for example. The Republicans have suggested that Medicaid become a program of block grants to the states. Lacking the power to print money, state governments will have to be more judicious and creative in how they handle health care. They also know their own residents' needs best. As laboratories of democracy, they'll be able to experiment with new ideas. Finally, healthy competition between them will foster improvements.

Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act would give more power to the federal government. In this and many other areas, that's the core debate: Should we double down on giving more power to the central government? Or should we give the states more leeway to find solutions, as intended by the Constitution?

The Founders created a government in which freedom was preserved because every level of government was balanced against another. The states were meant to be a check on Washington. Giving states more of the power they were meant to have will help safeguard our freedom.

So what happens if in coming years more power returns to the states? That would put more responsibility on North Carolina. Are we ready for it? That's the next good question.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/everythingquestioned/home#storylink=cpy

Why isn't anyone talking about criminal justice reform?

austinbaird — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 01:57:34 -0400

Q: What is an issue that deserves more attention than it has received from candidates during the election cycle?

A: Criminal justice reform

With any policy, we must ask “Is our current strategy producing the results we want?” When that answer is no, we have to change course. Unfortunately, in politics, this practice is almost completely ignored.

One topic which is always “off the table” in political discussions is the criminal justice system. Despite its undeniable failures, we continue down the same path, unwavering in our blind support for the status quo.

As a nation, we spent $68 billion in 2010 on our prison system; $1.3 billion of that in North Carolina. In 2009, NC had over 41,000 people in prison and is expected to be almost 10,000 inmates above max capacity by 2016. Further, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), half of prisoners released this year are expected to be back in prison in three years.

Due to our “get tough” stance on non-violent drug crimes, we are getting soft on serious crimes like murder, robbery and assault. According to the BJS only 37% of violent offenders served their full sentence. The justice system is also inherently biased: more than 60% of people in prison now are racial and ethnic minorities. Most of these failures can be traced to the War on Drugs, a $1.5 trillion dollar failed policy which has had zero impact on drug addiction but has dramatically increased violence through prohibition.

In NC, there are 156 people on death row but 140 death row prisoners nationwide have been exonerated of their crimes and released. Without a doubt, innocent people have been executed.

These are all serious issues being ignored so that politicians can look “tough on crime.” We must end the War on Drugs, the death penalty and focus our justice system on rehabilitation.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/everythingquestioned/home#storylink=cpy

What issues have been ignored during the campaign?

austinbaird — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 01:46:20 -0400

The following is the full question asked of groups across the political spectrum as part of the monthly topic of Elections & Voting at Everything Questioned:

Even with an election cycle that has left North Carolinians inundated by political ads and with more details about the presidential candidates than almost anyone would like, there have been plenty of issues lost in the background. Regardless of who is elected president, what is an issue that needs to become a priority after the election that has not been at the forefront during the campaign but will have a direct impact on N.C.?

Read a few takes on the blog's main page, sound off through comments, or send a 300-word response of your own to Austin Baird if you can do better.

Elections & Voting: Is there a moral obligation to vote?

austinbaird — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 01:36:27 -0400

Is it necessary to vote in order to be a "good" citizen in a democracy?

This question was asked of a few groups across the political spectrum, whose responses were originally posted on Oct. 8, 2012, and can be found by following the links below. There are countless more arguments to be made. Sound off in the comments section. Vote for your favorite in the poll. If you're up to the challenge, send a response of your own that's 300 words or less to Austin Baird – the best reader responses will be posted. Check the main page of Everything Questioned for more on Elections & Voting in North Carolina.

–

Democracy imposes laws on people who don't consent, so why vote at all?

"The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs."

By Emma Goldman

CONTINUE READING

–

You might have an obligation not to vote

"The practical reality is that one vote will not determine the result of an election of significant scale—nor will a decision to abstain—and you have other things to do with your time. Besides, even if it could determine the result, many candidates are so similarly deplorable they do not merit attention anyway. Why not use your time in a way that you can enjoy and that doesn’t pit you against your peers?"

By Fergus Hodgson of John Locke Foundation

CONTINUE READING

–

Voting isn't everything in a democracy, but it's worth the time

"We take the right to vote for granted today, but some of us lived in Southern counties where not a single black citizen could vote – less than 50 years ago. The bizarre efforts by elitist and partisan interests to undermine the votes of others even today should give us pause."

By Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina

CONTINUE READING

–

You're not obligated to vote, but you should this year

"Some cynics like to loudly proclaim that one vote doesn’t amount to much. Yet some of these cynics quietly charter buses to take their supporters to the polls. You may think your vote doesn’t count, but plenty of people on the other side of the issues think their votes count for plenty."

By Jim Tynen of Civitas Institute

CONTINUE READING

–

Tocqueville on democracy, voting rights in America

austinbaird — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:12:41 -0400

Alexis de Tocqueville
- from -
Democracy in America

Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it altogether. That is one of the most invariable rules of social behavior. The further the limit of voting rights is extended, the stronger is the need felt to spread them still wider, for after each new concession the forces of democracy are strengthened, and its demands increase with the augmented power. The ambition of those left below the qualifying limit increases in proportion to the number of those above it. Finally the exception becomes the rule; concessions follow one another without interruption, and there is no halting place until universal suffrage has been attained...

IN AMERICA the people appoint the legislative and the executive power and furnish the jurors who punish all infractions of the laws. The institutions are democratic, not only in their principle, but in all their consequences; and the people elect their representatives directly, and for the most part annually, in order to ensure their dependence. The people are therefore the real directing power; and although the form of government is representative, it is evident that the opinions, the prejudices, the interests, and even the passions of the people are hindered by no permanent obstacles from exercising a perpetual influence on the daily conduct of affairs. In the United States the majority governs in the name of the people, as is the case in all countries in which the people are supreme. This majority is principally composed of peaceable citizens, who, either by inclination or by interest, sincerely wish the welfare of their country. But they are surrounded by the incessant agitation of parties, who attempt to gain their cooperation and support...

In the United States, except slaves, servants, and paupers supported by the townships, there is no class of persons who do not exercise the elective franchise and who do not indirectly contribute to make the laws. Those who wish to attack the laws must consequently either change the opinion of the nation or trample upon its decision.

A second reason, which is still more direct and weighty, may be adduced: in the United States everyone is personally interested in enforcing the obedience of the whole community to the law; for as the minority may shortly rally the majority to its principles, it is interested in professing that respect for the decrees of the legislator which it may soon have occasion to claim for its own. However irksome an enactment may be, the citizen of the United States complies with it, not only because it is the work of the majority, but because it is his own, and he regards it as a contract to which he is himself a party.

In the United States, then, that numerous and turbulent multitude does not exist who, regarding the law as their natural enemy, look upon it with fear and distrust. It is impossible, on the contrary, not to perceive that all classes display the utmost reliance upon the legislation of their country and are attached to it by a kind of parental affection.

I am wrong, however, in saying all classes; for as in America the European scale of authority is inverted, there the wealthy are placed in a position analogous to that of the poor in the Old World, and it is the opulent classes who frequently look upon law with suspicion. I have already observed that the advantage of democracy is not, as has been sometimes asserted, that it protects the interests of all, but simply that it protects those of the majority.

In the United States, where the poor rule, the rich have always had something to fear from the abuse of their power. This natural anxiety of the rich may produce a secret dissatisfaction, but society is not disturbed by it, for the same reason that withholds the confidence of the rich from the legislative authority makes them obey its mandates: their wealth, which prevents them from making the law, prevents them from withstanding it. Among civilized nations, only those who have nothing to lose ever revolt; and if the laws of a democracy are not always worthy of respect, they are always respected; for those who usually infringe the laws cannot fail to obey those which they have themselves made and by which they are benefited; while the citizens who might be interested in their infraction are induced, by their character and station, to submit to the decisions of the legislature, whatever they may be. Besides, the people in America obey the law, not only because it is their own work, but because it may be changed if it is harmful; a law is observed because, first, it is a self-imposed evil, and, secondly, it is an evil of transient duration. (h/t to PBS)

This excerpt of Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" is posted as part of EQ's focus on Elections & Voting. Read more here:

Responses to the following question from across the political spectrum: How can voting fraud be stopped without putting an undue burden on certain voting blocs?
An archive of daily quotes related to Elections & Voting
Do you have to vote to be a 'good' citizen in a democracy?

Is there a moral obligation to vote?

austinbaird — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 10:44:27 -0400

The following is the full question asked of groups across the political spectrum as part of the monthly topic of Elections & Voting at Everything Questioned:

A statement that is repeated often especially during a campaign season is that "people died so you can vote." The line carries with it a couple implications. One is that U.S. soldiers have fought and died to protect freedoms enjoyed under a democratic system. It's obvious that many have sacrificed to preserve democratic ideals, but the line's second implication is not so cut and dry -- it's that voting is somehow an ultimate form of participation in democracy and that citizens have some kind of obligation to do so. Should people feel like they have to vote? If yes, why is it so important, when an individual vote has a marginal impact on the outcome of elections, and even less effect on shaping government? If no, why not, and when is a person justified in not voting?

Read a few takes and sound off through Facebook comments on the blog's main page, comment below, or send a 300-word response of your own to Austin Baird if you can do better.

Democracy imposes laws on people who don't consent, so why vote at all?

austinbaird — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 02:38:23 -0400

Is it necessary to vote in order to be a "good" citizen in a democracy?

Woman's demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of society. No one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right. Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an imposition. Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet woman clamors for that “golden opportunity” that has wrought so much misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and self-reliance; an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.

The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be robbed of the fruits of his labor. Yet all these disastrous results of the twentieth century fetich have taught woman nothing. But, then, woman will purify politics, we are assured. Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers. Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly.

As a matter of fact, the most advanced students of universal suffrage have come to realize that all existing systems of political power are absurd, and are completely inadequate to meet the pressing issues of life. This view is also borne out by a statement of one who is herself an ardent believer in woman suffrage, Dr. Helen L. Sumner. In her able work on EQUAL SUFFRAGE, she says: “In Colorado, we find that equal suffrage serves to show in the most striking way the essential rottenness and degrading character of the existing system.” Of course, Dr. Sumner has in mind a particular system of voting, but the same applies with equal force to the entire machinery of the representative system. With such a basis, it is difficult to understand how woman, as a political factor, would benefit either herself or the rest of mankind.

But, say our suffrage devotees, look at the countries and States where female suffrage exists. See what woman has accomplished--in Australia, New Zealand, Finland, the Scandinavian countries, and in our own four States, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Distance lends enchantment—or, to quote a Polish formula—“it is well where we are not.” Thus one would assume that those countries and States are unlike other countries or States, that they have greater freedom, greater social and economic equality, a finer appreciation of human life, deeper understanding of the great social struggle, with all the vital questions it involves for the human race.

The women of Australia and New Zealand can vote, and help make the laws. Are the labor conditions better there than they are in England, where the suffragettes are making such a heroic struggle? Does there exist a greater motherhood, happier and freer children than in England? Is woman there no longer considered a mere sex commodity? Has she emancipated herself from the Puritanical double standard of morality for men and women? Certainly none but the ordinary female stump politician will dare answer these questions in the affirmative. If that be so, it seems ridiculous to point to Australia and New Zealand as the Mecca of equal suffrage accomplishments.

On the other hand, it is a fact to those who know the real political conditions in Australia, that politics have gagged labor by enacting the most stringent labor laws, making strikes without the sanction of an arbitration committee a crime equal to treason.

Not for a moment do I mean to imply that woman suffrage is responsible for this state of affairs. I do mean, however, that there is no reason to point to Australia as a wonder-worker of woman's accomplishment, since her influence has been unable to free labor from the thralldom of political bossism.

Finland has given woman equal suffrage; nay, even the right to sit in Parliament. Has that helped to develop a greater heroism, an intenser zeal than that of the women of Russia? Finland, like Russia, smarts under the terrible whip of the bloody Tsar. Where are the Finnish Perovskaias, Spiridonovas, Figners, Breshkovskaias? Where are the countless numbers of Finnish young girls who cheerfully go to Siberia for their cause? Finland is sadly in need of heroic liberators. Why has the ballot not created them? The only Finnish avenger of his people was a man, not a woman, and he used a more effective weapon than the ballot.

As to our own States where women vote, and which are constantly being pointed out as examples of marvels, what has been accomplished there through the ballot that women do not to a large extent enjoy in other States; or that they could not achieve through energetic efforts without the ballot?

This is an excerpt of an essay from Emma Goldman's 1917 "Anarchism and Other Essays" that was written during the women's suffrage movement in the U.S. but remains relevant to a question about whether there is a moral obligation to vote. You can find more views at EQ's homepage and share your thoughts here and through comments or by submitting a response to Austin Baird.

You're not obligated to vote, but you should this year

austinbaird — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 02:22:37 -0400

Is it necessary to vote in order to be a "good" citizen in a democracy?

First, there’s no obligation to vote, and that’s great. Only totalitarian states compel 100 percent of their citizens to vote. Americans can shun the polling places and send the message that none of the candidates are acceptable.

However, this year the choices seem stark, underlining how voting remains a privilege – and a valuable one. Political operatives know the value of each ballot. Some cynics like to loudly proclaim that one vote doesn’t amount to much. Yet some of these cynics quietly charter buses to take their supporters to the polls. You may think your vote doesn’t count, but plenty of people on the other side of the issues think their votes count for plenty.

For what counts is not just my ballot, but mine and yours and the next person’s and ultimately those of everyone who votes. Only in a dictatorship does one person’s vote determine an election. In a democracy, the outcome is determined by the votes of all of us – meaning each of us.

This holds true especially in races that attract fewer voters, but may have a big impact. Look, for instance, at the North Carolina Supreme Court race. The winning candidate may tilt the state’s highest court in one direction or the other, affecting crucial issues such as redistricting. In such “down ballot” races, with fewer people casting ballots, the impact of votes is even greater.

Finally, with widespread early voting, much of the inconvenience of voting has been removed. It is no longer an irksome chore, but a simple task even in today’s hectic world.

People shouldn’t feel as if they have to vote – but they should be glad they can. And they should be eager this fall to join with their fellow citizens in casting ballots.

This response to a question about whether there is a moral obligation to vote, asked by Everything Questioned, was written by Jim Tynen of the Civitas Institute. You can find more views at EQ's homepage, and share your thoughts here and through comments or by submitting a response to Austin Baird.

Voting isn't everything in democracy, but it's worth doing

austinbaird — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 02:17:29 -0400

Is it necessary to vote in order to be a "good" citizen in a democracy?

Why vote? Ask those who are denied the right to shape their destiny why they fight so hard to be treated with the respect of first-class citizens.

We take the right to vote for granted today, but some of us lived in Southern counties where not a single black citizen could vote – less than 50 years ago. The bizarre efforts by elitist and partisan interests to undermine the votes of others even today should give us pause.

There’s something powerful and humbling about the promise of one person, one vote. For the young especially, we answer “Why vote” -

Use It or Lose It: The power-brokers would be happy if you just sit out elections. “Let the money talk – you shut up!”

It’s About You: Decisions made by the winning candidates affect everything – your income, education, job, your family and friends . . . If you don’t take an interest in yourself, why should others?

It’s About Power: Politicians listen to voters and donors. Unless you can write a big check, your power comes from joining others to vote them in – or out.

It’s About More Than You: Politics is how society makes decisions. Show you care about the well-being of others, the planet. Don’t get suckered into, “What’s in it for me?”

It’s Your Legacy: Your ancestors fought, bled, and died for your right to vote. Don’t let apathy or voter suppression take that away from you.

It Actually Matters: Elections from city hall to the White House have been decided by less than one vote per precinct. And some of those elections have changed the course of history.

Voting is one part of a lifetime of political participation. Jump in – take Twitter to a whole new level.

This response to a question about whether there is a moral obligation to vote, asked by Everything Questioned, was written by Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina. You can find more views at EQ's homepage, and share your thoughts here and through comments or by submitting a response to Austin Baird.

Don’t be fooled: You don't have to vote, and maybe you shouldn't

austinbaird — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 01:06:03 -0400

Is it necessary to vote in order to be a "good" citizen in a democracy?

To suggest that everyone has a moral obligation to vote begs the question, why? And if everyone were to have such an obligation, how far would it go? Does it mean one must vote even if he is out of the country or far from a voting booth? Does it mean one must vote in all elections, every year or season that they come up: federal, state, county, municipal, and even in student government elections?

The fact is, no such obligation exists, and a comfortable majority of eligible individuals choose not to vote even in many federal elections. They know that their abstention is not immoral. They do not owe anyone their time, and they did not choose such a process. Because someone else thought it was valuable at some point in time does not impose an obligation.

Further, not only is there not an obligation, there are compelling reasons for not voting.

The practical reality is that one vote will not determine the result of an election of significant scale—nor will a decision to abstain—and you have other things to do with your time. Besides, even if it could determine the result, many candidates are so similarly deplorable they do not merit attention anyway. Why not use your time in a way that you can enjoy and that doesn’t pit you against your peers?

Many people are disgusted with and do not wish to endorse the electoral process, majority rule, or the political parties on the ballot. Some areas of life ought not be within the realm of voting—what type of light bulb one’s neighbor uses, for example—but dominant political parties have a history of corruption and of consistently overstepping their legitimate bounds in a bipartisan manner. Why give them a mandate to continue?

This response to a question about whether there is a moral obligation to vote, asked by Everything Questioned, was written by Fergus Hodgson of the Democracy North Carolina. You can find more views at EQ's homepage, and share your thoughts here and through comments or by submitting a response to Austin Baird.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/EQ#storylink=cpy

Elections & Voting: How can voter fraud be stopped without suppressing certain blocs?

austinbaird — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:11:54 -0400

How can voting fraud be better detected and prevented without putting an undue burden on certain voting blocs?

This question was asked of a few groups across the political spectrum, whose responses were posted on Oct. 1, 2012, and have been posted below. There are countless more arguments to be made. Sound off in the comments section. Vote for your favorite in the poll. If you're up to the challenge, send a response of your own that's 300 words or less to Austin Baird – the best reader responses will be posted. Check the main page of Everything Questioned for more on Elections & Voting in North Carolina.

Photo ID is required for many other things, so why not voting?

"It's odd that proposals to add a photo identification requirement for voting generate vocal, vehement opposition, while existing photo ID requirements for entry into many government buildings generate...silence."

CONTINUE READING RESPONSE ONE

The state lapses in tracking voting fraud, so an honest debate isn't possible

"Fraud can’t be proven or disproven when the SBOE refuses to collect or analyze county-level election problems. "

CONTINUE READING RESPONSE TWO

There's more bad than good from requiring photo ID

"Requiring voters to show a government photo ID may sound simple, but it will waste millions of tax dollars to fix a problem that barely exists."

CONTINUE READING RESPONSE THREE

In-person voting fraud barely happens, and the General Assembly cut cash needed to address real problems

"Over the last two years North Carolina lawmakers have slashed more than $700,000 from the state election board’s budget – which in turn caused N.C. to lose yet another $4 million in federal funds that could have helped keep our democracy in working order."

CONTINUE READING RESPONSE FOUR

Elections & Voting: Quotes of the day from October

austinbaird — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 23:16:34 -0400

A quote is featured every day on Everything Questioned, and here you can find an archive of quotes related to Elections & Voting, the topic of the month for October.

Monday, October 1

"Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals."

– Mark Twain in "Corn-pone Opinions"

Tuesday, October 2

"Nothing is more dangerous in politics, especially in a critical period, than to repeat general formulas without examining their social content."

– Leon Trotsky in “Whither France”

Wednesday, October 3

“You may have a perfect system that you think will solve the economic problems of the world, but another will also have a perfect system, and the two systems, representing two different ideologies, will fight each other. As long as you are fighting over ideas, systems, there cannot be a true, radical revolution, there cannot be fundamental social transformation. Ideas do not transform people. What brings about transformation is freedom from ideas. Revolution based on ideas is no longer revolution but merely a continuation of the past in a modified state. Obviously, that is not revolution.”

– Jiddu Krishnamurti in a 1950 lecture in Colombo, Sri Lanka

Thursday, October 4

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

– Winston Churchill

Friday, October 5

“Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves.”

– Herbert Marcuse in “One-Dimensional Man”

Saturday, October 6

“It is one of the saddest spectacles of our time to see a great democratic movement support a policy which must lead to the destruction of democracy and which meanwhile can benefit only a minority of the masses who support it.”

– Friedrich Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom”

Sunday, October 7

“If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.”

– Hermann Hesse in “Demian”

Monday, October 8

“As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State "What does it matter to me?" the State may be given up for lost.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau in “The Social Contract”

Tuesday, October 9

“A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. The real reason for democracy is: Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”

– C.S. Lewis in “Present Concerns”

Wednesday, October 10

“The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.”

– Fyodor Dostoevsky in “The Brothers Karamazov”

Thursday, October 11

“The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear.”

– Jiddu Krishnamurti

Friday, October 12

“Illiteracy does not impede the practice of democracy, as witnessed by the success of democracy in India despite the high illiteracy rate. One doesn't need a university diploma to realize that the ruler is oppressive and corrupt. On the other hand, to eradicate illiteracy requires that we elect a fair and efficient political regime.”

― Alaa Al Aswany

Saturday, October 13

“Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.”

― George Bernard Shaw

Sunday, October 14

“If the leaders seek only to preserve themselves, that is what they become; preserves, dried preserves.”

– Leon Trotsky in “Some Questions on American Problems”

Monday, October 15

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

― John Adams

Tuesday, October 16

“I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”

― Alexis de Tocqueville in “Democracy in America”

Welcome to Everything Questioned

austinbaird — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:14:46 -0400

Welcome to Everything Questioned!

The goal of this new N&O blog is to start a conversation between people who disagree with one another and to highlight issues lost in the fray created by the day-to-day news cycle and partisan politics.

You can expect a few recurring features:

Monthly: A new topic will be announced the first Monday of every month. With Election Day just a few weeks away, the first topic is Elections & Voting.

Weekly: Groups and individuals across the political spectrum are asked a weekly question, and their responses are posted side-by-side every Monday morning. Readers cannot immediately see the author of each response for a simple reason: It’s too easy to only read news and ideas that support pre-existing beliefs, and everyone benefits from at least understanding the reasoning behind other points of view. You'll have to check back Friday to see who wrote each response.

Daily: Every morning, a post will be updated with a Quote of the Day and shared on EQ's homepage. As they are submitted, the best reader responses will be shared, and relevant essays from the public domain will be posted occasionally.

Readers are strongly encouraged to share their thoughts in the comment sections of each post, to submit ideas for questions and topics, and to write a response of their own in 300 words or less. Submit anything by email.

This blog will only take off if you get involved by participating and sharing with your friends, so take a few minutes to read, comment, write a response, then share the link to EQ's homepage (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/EQ) and follow us on Twitter!

Background on North Carolina voting fraud, photo ID controversy

austinbaird — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 00:29:41 -0400

The issue of in-person voting fraud has steadily gained prominence and has become a central campaign issue this election cycle nationally and in North Carolina.

A requirement that voters present government-issued photo identification has been enacted in some states, and in North Carolina, such a measure passed the General Assembly in 2011 but was vetoed by Gov. Bev Perdue.

Depending on the outcome of the elections this fall, a renewed effort to pass the legislation could become prominent in Raleigh again when the legislative session convenes in January.

The following question (condensed for space, full version at the end of this post) was asked of a few groups across the political spectrum, whose responses have been posted on EQ's home page: How can voting fraud be better detected and prevented without putting an undue burden on certain voting blocs?

For more background, below is some of The News & Observer's coverage of the debate on photo ID laws and voting fraud in North Carolina:

Here's the full question:

At least some in-person voter fraud happens in North Carolina, and it stands to reason if there is slightly more than detected by state watchdogs – every other crime from speeding to check fraud to murder routinely goes undetected, so why would that not hold true with voting? It's also true that requiring government-issued photo identification has more of an impact on the ability of poor people to vote, as they are less likely to have ID already and more likely to have trouble getting one. At least on the surface there is something to concerns raised by both sides, so how can a middle ground be reached – either by crafting an ID requirement or another way all together – that would better prevent and detect in-person voter fraud without putting an undue burden on certain voting blocs?

What's an issue has been ignored during the election cycle?
	Criminal justice reform
	Banking policies and the Federal Reserve
	The importance of states' rights

pollcode.com free polls

Is it necessary to vote to be a 'good' citizen?
	You might have an obligation not to vote
	Voting isn't everything in a democracy, but it's worth the time
	You're not obligated to vote, but you should this year
	Democracy imposes laws on people who don't consent, so why vote at all?

pollcode.com free polls

Choose your favorite response: How can voting fraud be better detected and prevented without putting an undue burden on certain voting blocs?
	Photo ID is required for many other things, so why not voting?
	The state lapses in tracking voting fraud, so an honest debate isn't possible
	There's more bad than good from requiring photo ID
	In-person voting fraud barely happens, and the General Assembly cut cash to address real problems

pollcode.com free polls