Talbott Quadrant government and parliament...

JohnRoth wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:
...

On the imperial tax issue, the SEM requires that its components make it universally possible for its citizens to pay "imperial taxes" in order to have the franchise. If the component in question thinks it can raise all of its share of the imperial budget through such taxes, that's fine. If it thinks it can raise only a portion of its share of the budget through such taxes, then it needs to do so. The imperial tax for franchise simply requires that you pay more in imperial taxes than you receive in direct subsidies/transfer payments from the imperial government. It says nothing one way or the other about what you may receive from the component of the SEM in which you happen to live as distinct from the imperial government.

It should also be noted that the notion of requiring someone to exercise the franchise is anathema to Manticoran thinking. The Manticoran electoral tradition is that restricting the vote to those willing to make at least a nominal sacrifice in order to exercise it is the path of wisdom, and they regard what happened to the PH when it transformed into the PRH as a perfect example of why they operate that way. In some ways, the Manty belief is left over from the original founding of the colony and the reason the colony became the SKM in the first place: political power/the franchise is concentrated in stakeholders who are actively invested in their society and, ultimately, pick up the tab for that society. Their taxation system is set up in a way which makes it possible for just about anyone to become a taxpayer to qualify for the franchise, but they feel no compulsion to make it easy for someone to do so.

I do not hold this up as an ideal system, although I do think it has many points in its favor. I simply say this is how the SKM was structured from the beginning.

And is should be noted that if Klaus Hauptman chose to finagle his taxes so that when the dust settled he owed zero on them, he would also finagle himself out of the franchise.

That brings up an interesting question? How are work-at-home wives, that is the traditional housewife, treated under this tax scheme? They don't have an income --- it's all their husband's income.

George J. Smith wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:

I would concur that it is a civic duty to vote. I would also concur that it is a privilege which comes with citizenship. The problem with compelling individuals to vote, whether they want to or not, is that you are essentially compelling people who have already self-selected themselves as nonvoters to become voters. The problem is that while you can compel them to vote, you cannot compel them to care about or become educated in the questions upon which they are voting.

In the rare cases where compelling them to vote will lead them to actually seek the knowledge to make informed choices and actually have opinions based on an understanding of issues, this would be a good thing. In the much larger (unfortunately) number of cases in which the compelled voter will simply vote for the one person whose name he actually remembers (for whatever reason), or the candidate who produces the best sound bite (regardless of veracity), or the candidate who claims to represent that voter's interest group (which the candidate may or may not do) all it does (at best) is lumber the electoral process with votes guaranteed to have little thought or analysis behind them. More probably, it provides a base of drones swayed by the popular passion du jour because they are too ill-informed to form opinions of their own. At worst, it provides a base of "voters" particularly subject to manipulation by unscrupulous and dishonest political leaders because their chosen, default position "uninformed, disinterested, and don't care" makes them so much more liable to manipulation by such cretins.

There is always the option to spoil the ballot paper, where voting still uses paper ballot slips.

Maybe there should be a selection named no vote so those who do not wish to vote, but are compelled to, can register their objection to that compulsion.

Personally I wish the British government would adopt compulsory voting, there have been too many instances of governments being elected by less than 50% of the eligible voters because of low turn-out on voting day.


T&R
GJS

runsforcelery wrote:I think a lot of people are hitting around the target without quite hitting the bull's-eye.

...

Do not try to find a close terrestrial parallel/model for what is being described here. There are bits and pieces of DNA from several historical systems included in the Star Empire's Constitution, but the Constitution itself is unique to Manticore's experience and needs.

TheMonster wrote:

hanuman wrote:It was a very small step for the Nazis to go from saying that Jews should not participate in German society and German politics to saying that they (the Nazis) had to take steps to ensure that the Jews didn't.

The huge difference between that and what I said, which you continue to ignore, is that I am not picking a particular group of people based on ethnicity, gender, economic strata, etc., and refusing to allow them to participate. I am saying that if someone has decided for himself that he should not participate, that forcing him to participate is very, very bad. I'm defending people's freedoms, and somehow that's being equated with stripping them of basic human rights by force.

hanuman wrote:The phrases I bolded are the ones I have issues with.

Firstly, there have been numerous studies undertaken that clearly demonstrate that the majority of non-voters fall within the poorest segment of the population. So even though YOU might not be saying so, the fact is that it can very easily be interpreted as a call to disbar people from voting on grounds of economic class.

hanuman wrote:Secondly, and this goes hand in hand with the first point, how do YOU or I know that someone has actively decided not to participate in the political process? Or might it be that the fact that they have to work two or even three jobs to feed and house their families have something to do with their inability to find the time to participate? Or maybe that they simply cannot get time off work to go and vote? Or that they do not have the money to travel to distant government offices to acquire the necessary identification papers? Who knows what the reasons are why someone doesn't vote or attend campaign rallies or volunteer for a candidate's campaign?

hanuman wrote:It is a cheap out to say, hey, you are not participating, so obviously you have made an active decision NOT to participate. It is an oversimplified explanation for why people do not participate in the political process. We have a saying in Afrikaans which translates as 'not to stroke everyone with the same brush'. I think that should apply in this instance.

hanuman wrote:Btw, Monster, I understand that you objected to a compulsory duty to vote. That's fine and I have no problem with your opinion. My objection was not against that, as I have remarked time and again.