Is 'Don't Vote.com' a good or bad idea?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by stanleyg, Oct 29, 2006.

  1. stanleyg

    stanleyg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is 'Don't Vote.com' a good or bad idea?

    Prelude:

    Hopefully, my thread may provoke meaningful discussions of whether 'Don't vote.com' is a good or bad idea'.

    As the author I am voicing my personal viewpoint. It's not to say that my personal viewpoint is right or wrong. It is merely my own personal opinion. So, please don't become offended or threatened. Feel free to voice your own personal viewpoint or opinion to let others know how you think.

    Personal viewpoint

    My personal viewpoint is that Don't vote.com is a bad idea. My reasoning is as follows:

    Don't vote.com is saying "Don't vote until you have heard the issues!" Off the top it sounds to be a very good campaign slogan. Yet, it may have a severe backlash. The slogan places candidates on the hot seat to divulge his or her personal views and/or beliefs.

    Moral issues (e.g. same-sex marriage, stem cell research or partial birth abortion etc.) are personal or private beliefs. Civic officials are not obligated by any civil law to give up his or right to privacy. Each is placed on civil service payroll to perform a duty or carryout the rules.

    For Example:

    • One doesn't question the postal delivery person about his or her moral beliefs. Rather, their job duty is to deliver the mail unopened until it reaches its destination or recipient. Capitol Hill is the destination or recipient of all voter mail and/or votes.
    The danger that I perceive is that incumbents and/or candidates seeking election to civic office will be intimidated or influenced by Don't vote.com. They may bend the rules to vote on issues without polling his or her district. Bending the rules inevitably leads to a broken government.

    A civic official is a person, who has temporarily stepped down from his or her superior rank as an American citizen to officiate the rules of our United States Constitution and/or State Constitution. It is the same as if a person were to step down to accept the office of an umpire, referee, judge, arbitrator or mediator to officiate a contest or dispute between competing parties.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 construes any civic office and/or civic establishment privately or publicly owned as a public accommodation (i.e. affects the safety, health or welfare of our community). As such, an individual or group may neither intimidate nor influence any civic officer to differentiate enforcing any rule, law or policy based upon color, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, creed, age or disability.

    The duty of a civic official, in respect to enforcing a rule, law or policy, is to refrain from interjecting his or her personal viewpoint. If a civic official were to do the latter, it will be perceived as favoritism or discrimination. The end product will manufacture schism (i.e. civil strife or racial riots etc.). A minority population will dissent to protest its grievances in the form of anarchy against civic officials for taking sides.

    Legally speaking, a State Representative, Congressman/woman, or Senator owns a fiduciary duty to officiate a democratic poll of his or her district. If he or she is derelict to perform the latter duty, in lieu to cast his or her own personal vote or viewpoint, then the people of his or her district are ill served or misrepresented. Instead, the people are left to hope or pray for which way the wind will blow on Capitol Hill.

    Under our civil system of self-government the people are in charge and/or the master of our own fate. The Preamble and Constitution protects the civil liberties of the people to make political decisions autonomously of our government. We need our civic officials to step down off his or her high horses, and supply us with the civil services that we have paid for through our taxes to carryout our own self-government.

    It may seem difficult for any layperson to conceive intellectually that the highest ranking civic officer (i.e. President) is lower in rank than any civilian citizen (i.e. taxpayer). It is the same as in the Army where the highest ranking Non Commission Officer (i.e. Command Sergeant Major) is lower in rank than the lowest Commissioned Officer (i.e. Lieutenant).

    Our Preamble has commissioned each citizen of the United States to hold the the highest rank of office to form a Federal Union to govern our own civic affairs. The President is the highest ranking civil servant on our payroll. His job descripition doesn't call for his leadership or rule. Our President has to step down from his superior rank as an American citizen in order to accept his subordinate oath of office to serve the People of our Union.

    The lawful duties of our Oval Office are to: enforce our Constitution, Bill of Rights and UCMJ for military personnel. Anything less would be uncivilized (lol).
     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Our Preamble has commissioned . . . no, it has no legal status to accomplish anything.

    The better reason to not vote is because a vote doesn't change anything. Both major parties are owned and controlled by the same people - same super party.
     
  3. stanleyg

    stanleyg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    The truth of the matter is that Congress operates a barter system. Our elected civic Officials trade their votes along/and or across party lines to pass a particular piece of legislation. The latter bartering process contaminates our democratic process.

    If our democratic process were adhered to by the letter of the law, then it would eliminate the bartering practices of our civic officials.

    In respect to moral issues, our First Amendment is a safeguard to protect each civilian citizen against the likelihood that Congress may vote in religious laws to dictate our moral conduct.
     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >If our democratic process were adhered to by the letter of the law, then it would eliminate the bartering practices of our civic officials. <

    Say again? What is illegal about the system. Problem is that it IS legal.
     

Share This Page

Loading...