1. What are you saying when you repost something? I post things I don't agree with all the time. Often my posting means: This is obviously a terrible idea. Or: This is weirdly interesting.
2. Sumpter's idea is weirdly interesting: He's talking about his "ideal society." I could see saying: In an ideal society, we wouldn't need voting at all. And we know what Jesus said about government.
3. How could we have voting at the "household" level without insane intrusion on everyone's privacy? Wilson doesn't seem to have thought about this since he's relying on the notion of what would "ordinarily" happen. And what would happen to the un-ordinary people? Maybe in Wilson's "ideal society," everyone is clustered into formal, officially designated families, but you can't get there from here, so it's a fantasy, for your contemplation. A weirdly interesting idea, as noted in point #1.
4. But, ooh, that terrible Hegseth!
ADDED: I've corrected the source of the quote which I'd mistakenly attributed to Doug Wilson, co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. Wilson is also quoted, saying "I would like to see this nation being a Christian nation, and I would like this world to be a Christian world." And, before bringing up Sumpter, The Guardian says that Wilson "raises the idea of women not voting." That's confusing, though I should have been more careful. I've also swapped in the name Sumpter on point #2. Thanks to Aggie, in the comments, for pointing out this problem.
पोस्ट्स
१४५ टिप्पण्या:
Bad idea. Hegseth should have known he would get tarred with the brush that he agreed with that idea.
"Progressive evangelical group"..
i'd ask, What in HELL a Progressive evangelical group believes..
except that i'm familiar with the ELCA
(Evangelical Lutheran Church in America)
and i'm Familiar with what in Hell THEY believe:
Transism is GOOD!
Lesbian priests are preferred
disgust and disdain towards Christ is Required
praise and and submission to Satan is THE WHOLE Purpose
it USED TO BE, one of the MAJOR churches in America
(back when they were Christian instead of Satanist)
Currently it has approximately 2.68 million baptized members.
of those, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY are elderly people that have NO CLUE what happened to their church
Women not voting was an excellent idea. Nothing about households, just that women make structurally unsound decisions. Structurally unsound means catastrophic side effects to the present choice.
meanwhile,
the oh so conservative Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod
has nearly 2 million members, and is growing strong.
It's funny; people that believe in Christ, Like to go to churches that believe in Christ.
People that believe hedonistic queerdom tend NOT to go to church
Presumes the existence of a "household." Muslim man gets one vote or five? Single mother gets one vote or none?
Ya, the household vote idea is fraught with problems. Does anyone ever think through to the implementation step of their ideas?
It’s the leftie spaghetti stage of ‘better messaging’, trying anything and everything to get the polling to break their way…
There’s a woman I’d let vote for me but she won’t be part of my household. Can these households be virtual?
Ranked choice?
Super delegates?
Democratic households?
What a terrible idea, voting at the household level. This would give extra power to the singles and broken homes, which are generally the least social in our society.
“Doug Pagitt, a pastor and the executive director of the progressive evangelical organization Vote Common Good”
Progressive evangelical? The group’s website endorsed Poke Salad Kammie.
JournoListic influencers?
Jingoistic rooms? Kings? Queens?
Can the vote be audited?
This was the traditional Basque political structure of medieval times. A valley or town or such would have its households (caserios, family seats of what you could call the yeomanry) elect a representative to the district, and some of them would go on to meet under the tree of Guernica. The royal representative of the Crown of Castlle was the Lord of Biscay.
It was a sort of constitunional monarchy.
"Does anyone ever think through to the implementation step of their ideas?"
Just begin with "in an ideal world" and you are free of the complications of reality.
Christians have posited Jesus as King after the second coming. Is he term limited? 1000 years? You won't be voting, I don't think, in that ideal world. Details: https://x.com/i/grok/share/9jsdM8I49nVMI3tBun0HnEG9q
Typical "if only the world were truly as wonderful as I am, there would be no problems" claptrap.
A terrible idea by a terrible person, employed in a terrible administration, headed by a terrible president, and staffed with terrible people.
"People that believe hedonistic queerdom tend NOT to go to church."
You might be surprised how many hedonistic queers probably do go to church...some (most?) closeted, others not.
As long as we're all "very disturb[ed]" by it, mission accomplished.
Robert Cook said...
"You might be surprised how many hedonistic queers probably do go to church"
DO TELL Robert!
Surprise ME! give me some numbers!
It's NOT that i'm calling you a liar, or a fool..
It's that i'm calling you a lying fool.
But PLEASE! show me up! quote some numbers.
Come ON! please?
"i'd ask, What in HELL a Progressive evangelical group believes.."
Very likely, they would believe in the ideas offered by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount, which is the crux of his preaching in one concentrated statement.
Jeez, Gilbar..does it upset you that much to think hedonistic queers may also be churchgoing Christians? I can't tell you a number, because I don't know...but neither to you. One must always expect to be surprised at the reality of the lives of those around us.
Then you'd have your electoral swingers where guys were swapping their wives' votes.
Most people, when they re-post something very controversial, such as the views of a Holocaust denier, are quick to distance themselves from it, or even disavow it. But Hegseth didn't do this. There is a national pro-Trump group called "Repeal the 19th," and there are MAGA commentators here on Althouse Blog who support taking away the right of women to vote.
"...Is he term limited? 1000 years?.."
It's an after-lifetime appointment.
Progressive sects are an artifact of prehistoric liberal whimsy serving a gay fantasy.
Just begin with "in an ideal world" and you are free of the complications of reality.
In an imperfect world, screws fall out all the time.
Wow! This post must have woken up Cookie from his stupor.
Good work, Althouse.
How authentic.
Most people, when they re-post something very controversial, such as the views of a Holocaust denier, are quick to distance themselves from it, or even disavow it.
Someone posted an idea! Quick, run away! Run away!
Deciding who should vote should not be determined by race or sex or even age really.
I think it is pretty obvious to all thinking people that the 19th amendment has produced bad results.
Only people who positively contribute to the future of the society should vote.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone of any sexual orientation who is genuinely hedonistic goes to church. Why would they not be at home sleeping off their hangovers?
lonejustice said...
Most people, when they re-post something very controversial, such as the views of a Holocaust denier, are quick to distance themselves from it, or even disavow it. But Hegseth didn't do this. There is a national pro-Trump group called "Repeal the 19th," and there are MAGA commentators here on Althouse Blog who support taking away the right of women to vote.
After you dispense with appeals to authority and emotional response there is very little support left for universal suffrage.
Men who don't work, serve the country, or raise their own children should not be able to vote. Neither should single mothers and childless cat ladies.
I don't think Ms. Althouse has captured how dishonest this reporting is.
Hegseth re-posted a CNN video focusing on a pastor named Doug Wilson, who commented on his desire for a Christian nation and world - and also that he's against 'women in combat' roles. Hegseth has attended Wilson's church. In this video, CNN also interviewed another pastor, Sumptor, the 'one household, one vote' guy. Did Hegseth voice support for Sumptor's views? No. Did the rag represent that he does? Yes.
No matter how you do it, implementing a republican form of government by fiat is bad, by consent of the governed is good. If the wife and kids ask him to vote for the family fine, but I would politely argue any adults who agreed with me to ADD their votes to mine.
Robert Cook said...
A terrible idea by a terrible person, employed in a terrible administration, headed by a terrible president, and staffed with terrible people.
Why is it terrible?
I agree that sex based limits on suffrage are a bad idea. We need to grow past delineations based off things we cannot change.
But people who choose hedonism and selfish desires should not be involved in determining the future of society.
It should be limited to those who positively contribute to the future generations of society.
You might be surprised how many hedonistic queers probably do go to church...some (most?) closeted, others not.
That's really sad, Robert Cook. It implies that churchgoing is viewed by the queer hedonist community as unacceptable behavior that churchgoing queer hedonists have to hide. I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.
Or were you saying they were "closeted" in their queer hedonism? I suppose this is possible, but it truly doesn't seem very likely, since both "queerness" and "hedonism" are at present both almost requiring of celebration in order to be seen as authentic*.
*Of course the phrase "seen as authentic" encapsulates the problem with that idea.
My hunch is that Hegseth's interest was in something else on the video rather than the nugget that interested this writer. Their SOP is to obscure not report.
To accuse not inform.
"I think it is pretty obvious to all thinking people that the 19th amendment has produced bad results.
"Only people who positively contribute to the future of the society should vote. "
So, you mark yourself down as NO on democracy and NO on the right of each citizen to have a say in his or her society.
Got it.
Robert Cook said...
"I think it is pretty obvious to all thinking people that the 19th amendment has produced bad results.
"Only people who positively contribute to the future of the society should vote. "
So, you mark yourself down as NO on democracy and NO on the right of each citizen to have a say in his or her society.
Got it.
Exactly.
Democracy has always been a terrible form of government and it inevitably leads to 51+% of the population voting to take the 49% of the populations stuff through aristocracy and race based preference.
That is why we are a constitutional Republic.
We would greatly benefit from eliminating hedonists and poor decision makers and lazy thinkers from the voter rolls.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone of any sexual orientation who is genuinely hedonistic goes to church. Why would they not be at home sleeping off their hangovers?
Why? To quote from Whitman's "Song of Myself":
"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
People are complicated and driven by complex and often contradictory impulses. This is to assume that hedonism and church going spiritualism is contradictory. Are they? Why do you think people with hedonistic drives would (or could) not also be spiritual and even church-going people?
"I find it difficult to believe that anyone of any sexual orientation who is genuinely hedonistic goes to church. Why would they not be at home sleeping off their hangovers?"
I didn't make it clear in my previous comment by quoting and adding italicization, but this part of my post was a quote from BIG MIKE.
First of all, this world, even though “fallen” is the perfect world for the purpose for which it was created: a place where each of us has been given our agency - our free will - and are individually free to choose among diverse and often alluring opposites. So perhaps a better way to write the question is “in a perfect SOCIETY…”
Here is what one righteous king and prophet said while speaking to his people, as recorded in the Book of Mormon:
“ 12 Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.
13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, [… - if ye could always have righteous kings] then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.”
…
16 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. 17 For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!
[they them implement a democratic system of elected judges.]
Then the prophet/king lays out the rest of the process.
“ 26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. 27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction
"...people who choose hedonism and selfish desires should not be involved in determining the future of society.
"It should be limited to those who positively contribute to the future generations of society."
Most people are selfish to one degree or other--if not necessarily hedonistic--and many or most can still be desire to of and capable to "positively contribute to the future generations of society."
Who are you (or anyone) to decide who is sufficiently "selfless" (and honest) to have the power of the vote. Obviously, you do not believe in a democratic society.
Robert Cook said...
"...people who choose hedonism and selfish desires should not be involved in determining the future of society.
"It should be limited to those who positively contribute to the future generations of society."
Most people are selfish to one degree or other--if not necessarily hedonistic--and many or most can still be desire to of and capable to "positively contribute to the future generations of society."
Who are you (or anyone) to decide who is sufficiently "selfless" (and honest) to have the power of the vote. Obviously, you do not believe in a democratic society.
Obviously not. Democracy is just tyranny of the majority.
If you think you should be able to take someone else's stuff and give it to your friends you should not be able to vote.
"That is why we are a constitutional Republic."
Oy, that tired old BS again: A constitutional Republic, of course, IS a democracy. It's just not a direct democracy, which is to say, it is a handicapped democracy.
"We would greatly benefit from eliminating hedonists and poor decision makers and lazy thinkers from the voter rolls."
And from being qualified to run for office. Trump is NOTHING if not a hedonistic, self-serving egoist, a poor decision maker (witness is many failed businesses and bankruptcies), and lazy thinker. Not to forget his often childish, spiteful, and even incoherent public rhetoric.
Eh, I was getting wrapped around the axle.
Good reasons exist for "handicapping" democracy - or did you mean "handicap" in the betting sense? If so, can you explain more?
…from the looks of it here the propaganda landed a little…
Robert Cook said...
"We would greatly benefit from eliminating hedonists and poor decision makers and lazy thinkers from the voter rolls."
And from being qualified to run for office. Trump is NOTHING if not a hedonistic, self-serving egoist, a poor decision maker (witness is many failed businesses and bankruptcies), and lazy thinker. Not to forget his often childish, spiteful, and even incoherent public rhetoric.
You are a stupid person Cook. You are a lazy thinker.
That is why you support socialism despite the repeated failures. You always have stupid excuses for past failures and why it will work this time.
"27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction."
Hmmm...he conditions as described above have come about, so this prediction may well be proved out in the not so far future.
"You are a stupid person Cook. You are a lazy thinker."
Not a very intelligent or useful response to my correct description of the worst POTUS in our Republic's history.
A lazy response.
Robert Cook said..
I can't tell you a number, because I don't know...but neither to you.
I quoted numbers.. Here are some more.
According to projections from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s (ELCA) Office of Research and Evaluation, the whole denomination will have fewer than 67,000 members in 2050, with fewer than 16,000 in worship on an average Sunday by 2041.
That’s right: according to current trends, the church will basically cease to exist within the next generation.
https://faithlead.org/blog/decline/
every (EVERY) Progressive church in the US (and the world) is showing catastrophic membership losses.
This is JUST TRUE Robert. The ONLY churches in the US (and the world) with increasing membership are the CHRISTIAN churches..)
Again.. feel free to rebut me.. but please do so with facts, not feelings.
Well, the Guardian...if it can be gotten wrong, they will get it wrong.
How about those recruiting numbers under Hegseth? Obama fired the warriors and kept the social workers. Hegseth under Trump is cleaning house and promoting warriors.
Through ballot harvesting, Democrats are the ones who want to concentrate the control over who others vote for at a much greater level, but without diluting the number of votes cast.
Robert Cook said...
"You are a stupid person Cook. You are a lazy thinker."
Not a very intelligent or useful response to my correct description of the worst POTUS in our Republic's history.
A lazy response.
No president has stopped as many wars and caused as much peace around the world as Trump.
No President has raised working and middle class wages as much as Trump has in the last 60 years.
No President has received as many legitimate votes from voters in the history of the country.
All of the things you pretend you want President Trump is accomplishing.
You are a lazy thinker Cook.
Even snopes.com recognized that #Repealthe19th was a joke. Fringe theopolitical groups have talked about repeal, but there doesn't appear to be any group called "Repeal the 19th." It's hard to imagine what the meetings would be like. It would be hard to stop the laughing and bring the meetings to order.
The irony here is that for 50 years or so, women were the family voters. They were more conservative than men and more concerned with the family and the household than men. Talk of repealing women's suffrage was a reaction to the major turnaround by women voters, which was largely due to unmarried women, rather than married women.
Re #3:
A careful reading of the account in Acts 16, of Paul's time in Philippi, give some subtle hints. Yes, it's a very foreign world; no, it's not an imaginable as our predecessors have already lived it.
The NYT told us that the whole Sydney Sweeney thing was the doing of right-wingers, who publicized the gripes of a few progressive gripers. In other words, "Republicans pounce!" Repeal the 19th was yet another example of leftists pouncing, making out that what somebody posted on the internet was an example of some terrifying mass movement. Articles about this Doug Wilson who I never heard of being some major figure on the right have been circulating for a while. He isn't. He's just another kook.
Of course, Hegseth shouldn't have reposted the video. He's in public office and is no longer free to indulge in the wild speculation that other internet users indulge in. The rest of us, though, are certainly free to ponder what was gained and what was lost when we entered the feminist future and girls started ruling the world. Misandry being institutionalized opens the door to misogyny.
I guess it's harder to run a department than run off with the mouth on Fox.
This post has no pony. The next post has a pony.
(Spoiler Alert) The post after that had a pony.
Democrats have been trying to instruct their family members how to vote for years. Pajama Boy.
It's always fun.
The real mistake was not limiting the franchise to property owners.
A buddy of mine has been an election observer in many countries in eastern Europe and Central Asia. He told me a story about an incident in Bosnia where the man of the house was very upset that he wasn't allowed to cast the votes for all the adults in his family. Unfortunately for him Bosnia didn't have mail in ballots.
The Constitution never denied the vote by color or sex. The latter only queerly introduced as an inferred statement under the 14th. Class-disordered ideologies (e g. feminism) are led by kings and queens to keep men and women on plantations, on farms.
'The Guardian says that Wilson "raises the idea of women not voting."'
Men often fantasize about women doing what we would like them to do. It's mostly pretty harmless.
Seems like everybody has promptly forgotten the recent discussion of how Congressional apportionment works. The population of a Congressional district includes non-voting minors which means that for two (since a state's EV count is based mostly the number of Representatives allotted to the state) out of the three elected national governing institutions parents are in effect voting for their children, and I'm fairly certain the same holds true for state legislative representation as well. I suspect this is why the proverbial 'soccer moms' punched well above their electoral weight for so long.
Jesus was concerned with the Kingdoms of God/Heaven, not the governments of men. If his teachings were followed, governments would be beneficial. Also, Isaiah 55:8 & 9
"Good reasons exist for 'handicapping' democracy - or did you mean 'handicap' in the betting sense? If so, can you explain more? "
I don't necessarily disagree that "good reasons exist for handicapping democracy." Putting some limited reins on completely "pure" democracy may be advisable--as untempered "pure democracy" could potentially lead to governance by the untempered, intemperate mob.
But...that seems to be what have now now, an intemperate mob in the White House and in a significant percentage of the voters.
Hey, lone justice… how did your turn as a rodeo clown @ the Iowa State Fair go?
Cook: “… the worst POTUS in our Republic's history.” Cook lacks the capacity to think critically about the potential consequences of facilitating the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a theocracy whose leaders chant, “Death to America.” He also lacks the awareness to recognize the cost and risks inherent to allowing 8, or so, million illegal, unvetted immigrants to invade us. Obama and Biden and their minions have wreaked havoc on our future unless Trump can stop it.
Wait till someone who knows a little history gets into the comments. This "head of household" derives from the likely origins of voting vice fighting where the head of the household was the oldest warrior. Of course, the obviates modernity and returns to the clan based society.
In more recent period, the Puritans weren't really as puritanical as Nathanial Hawthorne described, using them as a proxy for the pietist movement of his time and area of the country. But the Puritans did require all persons to be a member of a family whose head, the father, had the vote and had responsibility for all in his family. A young single male wishing to remain in the community was taken into apprenticeship by one of these family units and held in loco parentis. If they did not wish to apprentice, then they could move on.
The historical reason why the suffrage has so generally been restricted to men is perhaps to be sought in the conditions under which voting originated. In primeval times voting was probably adopted as a substitute for fighting. The smaller and presumably weaker party yielded to the larger without an actual trial of physical strength ; heads were counted instead of being broken. Accordingly it was only the warriors who became voters. The restriction of political activity to men has also probably been emphasized by the fact that all the higher civilizations have passed through a well-defined patriarchal stage of society in which each household was represented by its oldest warrior. From present indications it would seem that under the conditions of modern industrial society the arrangements that have so long subsisted are likely to be very essentially altered.
--Civil Government in the United States (1902), John Fiske
"No president has stopped as many wars and caused as much peace around the world as Trump.
"No President has raised working and middle class wages as much as Trump has in the last 60 years.
"No President has received as many legitimate votes from voters in the history of the country."
You are grievously deluded. What you believe to be the reality around you is your ready belief in propaganda and lies. If you had been a citizen in mid-20th Century Russia, you would have been a ardent supporter of Stalin.
“You are grievously deluded. What you believe to be the reality around you is your ready belief in propaganda and lies. If you had been a citizen in mid-20th Century Russia, you would have been an ardent supporter of Stalin.”
Facts are facts, Cook. These are noticeable improvements and they are among those milestones that are driving the Democrats to distraction and panic, as they see their tenuous parasitic attachment to the US Treasury slipping away.
And none too soon.
THAT access is really all the grifting, mendacious corksoakers care about.
We would greatly benefit from eliminating hedonists and poor decision makers and lazy thinkers from the voter rolls.
And who, exactly, gets to decide who the "hedonists, poor decision makers, and lazy thinkers are? You?! You have already stated 30% of the population needs to be eliminated (either through execution, imprisonment, or exile).
And for someone who should be at church this morning, you are sure posting a lot of comments.
After hearing your position, dear one, I conclude you are correct on how we should vote. Rest easy I'll head down to the polling site and follow your brilliant guidance.... heh, heh, heh.
Hey, lone justice… how did your turn as a rodeo clown @ the Iowa State Fair go?
Is calling someone a rodeo clown meant as an insult? If so, please explain why.
"This post has no pony. The next post has a pony.
(Spoiler Alert) The post after that had a pony. "
Doesn't this post get partial credit for featuring comments by a horse's ass?
it has a decent quantity of droppings,
stalinist droppings are perhaps the worst
Point 3 also needs a name swap.
I saw a video about this yesterday. Hopefully our legal system will keep them in check.
Also, the video slammed the church for having no women in authority positions. But think about this: The Catholic church doesn't allow women in authority positions in the Catholic church. The Catholic church still holds that homosexuality is a sin and doesn't support gay marriage. And if someone has an abortion, or helps anyone else to have an abortion, that brings automatic excommunication from the Catholic church. (No kind of trial or ruling needed.) And there are a lot of Democrat politicians who claim to be Catholics in good standing with the church.
Althouse suggests that voting by household would garner an insane level of invasion of privacy. Perhaps no more than voting by mail. When people in a household vote by mail, do we think they do not show their filled in ballots to each other before mailing them or before giving them to a ballot harvester? Why is this allowed? (NB. The use of garner!)
As I write, there are 85 comments, and, unless I missed one, no one has pointed out that many Americans are voting by household, and that's a bad thing, one of the worst things about vote-by-mail.
I've read that many black churchgoers have "voting parties" the Sunday before Election Day where they sit around a table with their preacher filling out their ballots together, and give them to him to mail or drop off at the polling place. And I'm pretty sure strict Muslim fathers fill out all the ballots for their (one or more) wives and any over-18 children still living at home, without even asking them their opinions. It's an easy way to enforce conformity.
Which reminds me of some old friends of my parents. He was ferociously right-wing - went to his grave thinking Nixon was framed. (Not that Nixon was punished for things that Kennedy and Johnson had done even more of and gotten away with, but that the Nixon tapes were forgeries.) I still recall his meek little wife assuring him that of course she was going to vote for Nixon over McGovern, while whispering to my mother something about the privacy of the voting booth and winking.
“Is calling someone a rodeo clown meant as an insult? If so, please explain why.”
Why, not at all, Fredo…
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”… amirite?
Althouse--The problem that Aggie pointed out is not the "problem" you address in your addendum. The problem is that the Guardian played bait & switch and claimed that Hegseth endorsed women not being allowed to vote. That is a lie.
Also Hegseth is the holder of the office previously titled "Secretary of War." There is a reason why the civilian politicians make the policies and the military guys kill people and blow things up. I don't really care what Pete Hegseth's views on voting are.
Why, not at all, Fredo…
I don't think you understand or appreciate the role of a Rodeo Clown.
The problem is that the Guardian played bait & switch and claimed that Hegseth endorsed women not being allowed to vote. That is a lie.
When he reposts without comment a video that argues that only male of households should be allowed to vote, you can certainly presume that he is endorsing ending women's suffrage. It's not like he reposted the video with the comment "can you believe this bullshit?".
Islamic terrorists in Syria continue brutally slaughtering Christians and Druze — REAL ethnic cleansing. This just happened at Suwayda Hospital. No news coverage. Not one North American mosque or Muslim org has spoken out against this terrorism. No protests, no encampments, no outrage — nothing! Just deafening crickets. Why is that?
https://x.com/HashemAllMighty/status/1954585936131739935
In my ideal society there would be only one voter.
@Dr Weevil
You’re right — what you’re describing with vote-by-mail and ballot harvesting is essentially informal household voting, and the privacy problem isn’t theoretical.
I’d add that even in the voting booth, party affiliations on ballots can quietly enable the same kind of conformity pressure. From a cost–benefit perspective, it’s not unreasonable to skip studying every policy position and let the party label carry some of that cognitive load — but that shortcut can also reinforce group conformity. We see a parallel in Congress, where members might not have fully read every bill they vote on, relying instead on party leadership or committee summaries.
Either way, it chips away at the idea of an independent, private ballot. The household-voting fantasy isn’t so far removed from some of the vulnerabilities we already tolerate.
“I don't think you understand or appreciate the role of a Rodeo Clown.”
I don’t think it wise for you to use the unsuccessful pitch you used the last time you argued for a raise, Fredo.
It didn’t work then and it sure as Hell ain’t working now.
https://twitchy.com/grateful-calvin/2025/08/10/florida-democrats-lock-themselves-in-a-cage-to-protest-alligator-alcatraz-n2417057
Reform Protestants want men in positions of authority. An outspoken woman of my acquaintance just this week cited as the first of several positive attributes of her new church, "It's all men."
I had already asked her about this viewpoint once before. That is what Paul described or commanded; that men should run the church offices.
It is interesting to think about Biblical instructions. With the text having been translated wholly into 756 languages, the New Testament into 1,726, have we not fulfilled the Great Commission? Has not the word of God reached "all nations"?
The very first Bible printed in North America was a Puritan translation into Natick-Massachusetts, to fulfill the Commission with their new neighbors.
Of course, yes, it's another thing to read it. But it is the most interesting book on earth.
@hombre
Jesus was concerned with the Kingdoms of God/Heaven, not the governments of men. If his teachings were followed, governments would be beneficial. Also, Isaiah 55:8 & 9
I don’t think you can have a government of men reflect any faith’s teachings consistently. We’re not consistent ourselves — most of us don’t confront our own contradictions head-on, preferring to rationalize them so we can keep a coherent self-image. And Isaiah’s reminder fits: we don’t possess wisdom, only understanding, and even that understanding is partial. That gap guarantees that translating divine principles into human policy will always be uneven.
Does he mean, like, mail in ballots filled out together at the dinner table? Coloradans have been doing that for some time.
Not to be nitpicky, but I, for one, would like to see AI create an image of "brining up Sumpter." If this is going to be a thing, shouldn't it be a funny thing?
I tried AI once, asking about a poem by Randall Jarrell, and it mocked me. Is this 13-year-old mean girl thing built into the system? Did I accidently push the Tina Fey button? It was a banal request for a poem title.
I have a teaching exercise called limited vocabulary. It's the words of a slightly obscure poem that doesn't contain many identifiable words, scrambled on a page and separated by nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. The point is to create a new poem using all the words. The results are brilliant; my tech students loved it. I wonder if AI would just identify the original poem.
That's confusing, though I should have been more careful.
It is deliberately confusing. Should Ann have been more careful or should media have been more responsible? I say the latter...
Robert Cook, it seems to me that you assert a lot about Trump's stupidity and/or evil, but where's the beef? How DO you respond to peace breaking out all over, trade deals to the US's advantage being forged, NATO members' upping their contributions, the economy not crashing, real wages rising, illegal immigration screeching to a halt, military recruitment meeting targets again, and - despite breathless expectations from your side - Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits continuing to arrive on time for all eligible recipients?
I believe you're a Green voter, generally, so I certainly wouldn't expect you to see the light and start voting Republican. But... mere assertions (ahem) without evidence that Things Are Very Bad don't go too far when improvement is so easy to see and hard to deny.
Coloradans have been doing that for some time.
Yah, I was thinking the only reason lefties hate this idea is because it would hurt their chances. They'd be all for the most liberal family member filling out the ballots for everyone...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkGwY7iTYg&msockid=8f90bf7f761e11f0b4d2a4a214e1c064
In my ideal society there would be only one voter.
#MeTwo... I mean, #MeToo.
Communication is key to good relationships. Now, it's an invasion of privacy, a leverage game, a means to extortion. This is one reason why men and women with progress wallow in the tar pits of artificial indulgence (AI).
“How about those recruiting numbers under Hegseth? Obama fired the warriors and kept the social workers. Hegseth under Trump is cleaning house and promoting warriors.”
This last week, there was a shooting at Ft Stewart. Several senior noncoms ran to the sound of gunfire, tackled him, got the gun away from him, and held him for authorities. Meanwhile others immediately started attending to the wounded. Six of them received medals and commendations personally from the Secretary of the Army, who flew down there for that purpose. With the support of SecDef Hegseth and President Trump. And people wonder why all the services are now swamped with applicants, while under Biden they weren’t making their recruiting quotas.
People may express their opinion in blocs with consensus or rebellion. Anthropogenic Illusions are a progressive risk where Diversity, Equivocation, Indoctrination (DEI) seize a community in a vice grip.
and there are MAGA commentators here on Althouse Blog who support taking away the right of women to vote.
I would gladly substitute your vote with my wife's.
“ Does he mean, like, mail in ballots filled out together at the dinner table? Coloradans have been doing that for some time.”
Which was when Colorado became a one party state. We are living right now there, and the people supporting Gov Polis and the laws that the Dems have imposed are few and far between. Indeed, he seems to do better in voting statewide than he ever did in his older Boulder based Congressional district tailored to keep his seat safely Dem (it was gerrymandered to include three universities).
It’s a means for voter fraud, pure and simple.
Freder Frederson said...
We would greatly benefit from eliminating hedonists and poor decision makers and lazy thinkers from the voter rolls.
And who, exactly, gets to decide who the "hedonists, poor decision makers, and lazy thinkers are? You?! You have already stated 30% of the population needs to be eliminated (either through execution, imprisonment, or exile).
And for someone who should be at church this morning, you are sure posting a lot of comments.
Voting should be limited to married parents that have at least 2 children and people that served the country in delineated capacities like the armed forces. You could also create a civil engineer corps that builds infrastructure around the country.
Peachy said...
Islamic terrorists in Syria continue brutally slaughtering Christians and Druze — REAL ethnic cleansing. This just happened at Suwayda Hospital. No news coverage. Not one North American mosque or Muslim org has spoken out against this terrorism. No protests, no encampments, no outrage — nothing! Just deafening crickets. Why is that?
https://x.com/HashemAllMighty/status/1954585936131739935
Israel took out Assad and made this happen.
I could care less about what Israel has done in Ghaza to Hamas. The only mistake Israel has made is taking so long to take over Ghaza and hand it over to a Saudi/Egyptian managerial government.
I think that the people supporting Hamas in our country are Astroturf. The pro-Hamas lobby in the US would not exist without massive money support. I think that someone has built up the Hamas support in the world to make Israel's enemies look like they support monsters.
I think the people who have the most to gain from pro-Hamas protests in the world is Israel because it deflects from the actually bad things they have done like cause the Christian Genocide in Syria.
Way more Christians have been killed in Syria because of Israel's actions than Ghazans in Ghaza. Israel would risk losing US support if this became the focus.
The obvious thing would be to have the man, if he's married and has children under 18, to get an extra vote, to represent them.
But talking about "ideal voting laws" is absurd when we have the Democrats having illegals vote, and pushing 16 and 17 y/o to have the right to vote. Not to mention committing mass voter fraud (like 2020) and then attacking anyone who wants it investigated.
In fact, even if you got a so-called Christian ideal of voting, the Leftist would start working immediately to undermine and destroy it. The left is results orientiented. The decide what they want: almost alway power. Then then do whatver it takes to achieve it.
Given that, standing off on the lines and thinking about "ideal voting systems" is a waste of time. As is, talking about running away to a cabin in the woods, where "the Left wont get me". Because they will get you - eventually.
Its like talking about "Under our Constitution, blahblah". Our "Constitution" is what the Judges say it is. Until everyone stops bowing down to them and letting them use their judicial power to impose their policy preferences on anyone - it'll stay that way.
It is simply false to say that "Israel took out Assad". It was the Syrian people, with Turkish support, who did it. Ukraine helped a bit, training the rebels in drone use, since they wanted to remove one of Russia's few loyal allies, but Turkey provided most of the foreign weapons and ammunition.
Israel's only role was to keep Iran from interfering, and to destroy as much of Assad's advanced weaponry as they could to prevent the new regime from using it. The new Syrian regime certainly didn't ask them to do that.
Assad's regime collapsed so quickly for the same reason Ceausescu's did. He was a brutal murderer whom everyone except his paid henchmen and his Russian allies hated. Once it started to crumble, everyone abandoned him, most to celebrate, the henchmen to try to save themselves.
Voting should be limited to married parents that have at least 2 children and people that served the country in delineated capacities like the armed forces. You could also create a civil engineer corps that builds infrastructure around the country.
But even with these restrictions, shouldn't insane jerks be also excluded?
I guess you are excluded.
And people wonder why all the services are now swamped with applicants, while under Biden they weren’t making their recruiting quotas.
I can't wait for the new recruiting ad: "Join the army and get shot by your sergeant , and if you stop it we will give you a medal". Are you insane?
Meeting recruiting goals is a good leading indicator that the economy is in trouble. While most people join the military out of a genuine desire or patriotic zeal, some join because there are simply no other alternatives.
This is exactly the problem with mail-in ballots.
Freder Frederson said...
Voting should be limited to married parents that have at least 2 children and people that served the country in delineated capacities like the armed forces. You could also create a civil engineer corps that builds infrastructure around the country.
But even with these restrictions, shouldn't insane jerks be also excluded?
I guess you are excluded.
You make the assertion that I am an insane jerk.
I make the assertion that only people who have a stake in and positively contribute to the future of society should be allowed to determine its direction.
There is a reason nobody likes you all and you are losing elections.
Dr Weevil said...
Israel's only role was to keep Iran from interfering, and to destroy as much of Assad's advanced weaponry as they could to prevent the new regime from using it. The new Syrian regime certainly didn't ask them to do that.
So Israel's only role in taking out Assad was destroying the Syrian Army...
This is why we can't have nice things.
It wasn't the Syrian Army, it was the Syrian Air Force, and it was after the new regime had taken over that Israel did it. They destroyed the most advanced jets and stockpiles of bombs and missiles, but did not aim to kill the airmen, just disarm them.
Do you get it? They didn't trust the new regime not to use Assad's weapons on Israel (or the Kurds, or the Druze, or the Christians). So far from putting the new regime in power, they spent a lot of money and effort disarming them after they came to power, because they trusted them even less than they trusted Assad.
One more time: Israel did not overthrow Assad. Anyone who was paying attention at the time would know that.
@ROCEAN II
Its like talking about "Under our Constitution, blahblah". Our "Constitution" is what the Judges say it is. Until everyone stops bowing down to them and letting them use their judicial power to impose their policy preferences on anyone - it'll stay that way
Judges only get to weigh in when there’s a case or controversy that puts some action — whether it’s a law, regulation, or executive order — into potential conflict with the Constitution. If there’s even a narrow opening for such a challenge, the courts can take it.
If Congress stayed within well-defined delegated powers, that conflict rarely arises — and “Our Constitution is what the judges say it is” stops being a problem.
But here’s the rub: pragmatism almost always wins over principle.
Pragmatism says, “Let’s stretch the Constitution to solve the problem at hand.”
Principle says, “If the Constitution doesn’t give us the power, we don’t do it — even if it’s convenient.”
Over the last century, both parties have favored pragmatism when it serves their goals, expanding federal reach through broad readings of the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and implied powers. That creates more opportunities for the courts to rule — because the more territory Congress claims, the more disputes arise over how it’s used.
If we actually stuck to delegated powers, that would mean no:
National economic regulation
National-level social policy
Federal control of education, healthcare, and retirement programs
Immigration and border mandates
Broad national security powers
Both sides would have to give things up — and that’s why neither really pushes for it.
You want to diminish the influence of the judicial branch? This is the way.
(Well… or amend the Constitution.)
Politicians and anti-politicians are always searching for gotchas. It's helpful if you always ask "What is the context" for the allegedly problematic thing being reported. Thank you for providing it. What a bunch of nothing. Again.
Keldonric,
> Judges only get to weigh in
> when there’s a case or controversy
What is that supposed to mean? If there isn't a handy case or controversy, you can always just manufacture one..
"Judges only get to weigh in when there’s a case or controversy that puts some action — whether it’s a law, regulation, or executive order — into potential conflict with the Constitution. "
Yeah, if we just get rid of laws, regulations, and executive orders, then Judges will be OK. Cant deny that. LOL!
Meanwhile, back in the real world....
Courts were meant to step in only when there was a genuine, live dispute — a real case or controversy. Yes, it’s possible to manufacture one, but only if there’s enough in the law or action to hang the challenge on. The more Congress strays from well-defined delegated powers, the more of those hooks exist. And when that happens, courts don’t just resolve the dispute in front of them — they often end up defining the limits of entire policy areas. Stay within those limits, and most of those openings disappear — which changes the court’s role entirely.
Dr Weevil said...
Do you get it?
Yeah. I do get it.
You are stupid and dishonest.
Democratic household? Representative family? The only difference is scale. Small National Model (SNM).
Yeah, if we just get rid of laws, regulations, and executive orders, then Judges will be OK. Cant deny that. LOL!
Meanwhile, back in the real world....
Right — because heaven forbid we actually keep laws and actions inside the framework we agreed on. Then judges might get bored, and we can’t have that… which is exactly my point about why their role has expanded.
Keldonric said...
If we actually stuck to delegated powers, that would mean no:
National economic regulation
National-level social policy
Federal control of education, healthcare, and retirement programs
Immigration and border mandates
Broad national security powers
Both sides would have to give things up — and that’s why neither really pushes for it.
All of these things were meant to be handled by the States. And there was wisdom in this design because history has shown that the Federal Government is pretty bad at everything. It is way to big and too far away.
It isn't about "both sides" here as you define it. There is only one side in Washington DC. That is Washington DC. The reason none of these programs are cut is the same reason that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties are near Washington DC. The richest people in the country are Republicans and Democrats in Washington DC.
Most of the money spent on these programs stays in Washington DC. That is why they exist.
Keldonric said...
Yeah, if we just get rid of laws, regulations, and executive orders, then Judges will be OK. Cant deny that. LOL!
Meanwhile, back in the real world....
Right — because heaven forbid we actually keep laws and actions inside the framework we agreed on. Then judges might get bored, and we can’t have that… which is exactly my point about why their role has expanded.
Judges expanded their role because that is what people do. They are just as corrupt and venal as congress people and presidents.
People who want to be judges suffer from the same basic character flaws as politicians because they are politicians. We should limit the power of judges for the same reason we should limit the power of the government in general.
@Achilles
Exactly — we’re on the same page. In practice, Washington isn’t two sides, it’s one: the side in power. Party labels don’t matter much when the shared incentive is to grow authority and keep control. The more Congress and the executive stretch beyond delegated powers, the more hooks there are for judges to grab onto — and human nature being what it is, they will.
This is why I’ve been pressing the point that the federal government is, at its core, an agent of the States and the people — not a sovereign in its own right. I once laid that out in detail and the only response I got was a single word: “no.” No reasoning, no counterpoint. That silence spoke volumes about how far we’ve drifted from even discussing those limits.
Madison’s veto of the Bonus Bill in 1817 is a perfect example of what we’ve lost. He liked the policy, but blocked it because the Constitution didn’t delegate the power. That kind of restraint would be almost unthinkable now — not because one party wouldn’t do it, but because neither would.
Keldonric said...
@Achilles
This is why I’ve been pressing the point that the federal government is, at its core, an agent of the States and the people — not a sovereign in its own right. I once laid that out in detail and the only response I got was a single word: “no.” No reasoning, no counterpoint. That silence spoke volumes about how far we’ve drifted from even discussing those limits.
Pretty much.
Our federal government and people like Ann and really everyone have been pretending that the 9th and 10th amendments don't exist.
They are just lazy people and we are losing freedom because the baby boom generation started a pattern of dependence and weakness that has continued to filer through the generations.
The Silent Generation gave us Social Security and the Greatest Generation gave us Medicare/Medicaid and the Great Society welfare state.
It's not all on the boomers, there's plenty of blame to go around.
@Achilles
I’d actually been building up to this in a few earlier posts — the first time I dropped it in full was at Reason, and the only reply I got was just “no.” Here’s that comment:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I see, ok.
When I call the federal government an agent, I’m using the older sense of the word — Samuel Johnson (1755) defined it as “one employed to act for another,” and Webster (1828) as “a substitute, deputy, or factor; one entrusted with the business of another.”
In Federalist 39, Madison describes the federal government as deriving its powers from “the assent of the people” and being “limited to certain enumerated objects,” while the states retain “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” The 10th Amendment states this principle outright: powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or the people. That sounds to me exactly like an agent — its business isn’t its own, it acts on behalf of and under the authority of another.
If the only powers it has are those delegated, then it has no independent business of its own. The people (and the states) may grant the authority to exercise a power, but they still own that power. That ownership means the power can be altered or taken back — even if day-to-day authority has been entrusted to the federal government.
Doesn’t that mean that, by definition, the federal government can’t be sovereign in its own right?
I can see people are doing the same thing that losertarians, and Conservatives always do. Lets not talk the real world in August 2025, lets derail into some Constitutional fantasy world. Y'see 230 years ago, Madison said blahdeblah. And if only we'd get rid of the Federal Government and all those laws and regulation we'd have Utopia.
Meanwhile in the real world, we have leftwing judges who are out of control and trying to be POTUS. And who are throwing guilty people they don't like into the slammer forever, and letting the guilty people they DO like off with a slap on the wrist. 200 injunctions against Trump in 8 months. 10 injunctions against Obama in 8 years.
In the real world, Leftwing judges can do anything. And they ones who can stop them are other judges. That's the issue. Do we have a republic or a judicial dictatorship? Yeah, I know its not about $$$, so you don't care. But most of us do.
Mason G said...
The Silent Generation gave us Social Security and the Greatest Generation gave us Medicare/Medicaid and the Great Society welfare state.
It's not all on the boomers, there's plenty of blame to go around.
The Social Security the Silent Generation gave us is much different than the Social security we have today.
Medicare and Medicaid were always abominations but they have metastasized in awful ways and they were always protected primarily by boomer voters. I don't mind spreading more blame though. Stupid people get stupid programs.
@RCOCEAN II
I can see people are doing the same thing that losertarians, and Conservatives always do. Lets not talk the real world in August 2025, lets derail into some Constitutional fantasy world. Y'see 230 years ago, Madison said blahdeblah. And if only we'd get rid of the Federal Government and all those laws and regulation we'd have Utopia.
I’m not arguing for or against any specific policy outcome here. I’m pointing out that my concern is about whether the Constitution for the United States of America is treated as the framework we work within — or just something to work around.
If the Constitution for the United States of America had been amended properly to allow all of the things the federal government does today, that would be great — it would have shown deference to the consent of the people. Over time, we’ve reached a point where the framework is not seen as something to be worked within, but something to be worked around.
Once upon a time, the Volstead Act was passed. Today, the government could just make alcohol a scheduled substance. Do you see the difference? It’s not about leftwing, rightwing, upwing, downwing. If we amended the Constitution for the United States of America to require every citizen to own a rubber chicken, then legislation could be lawfully crafted to that end — and I would have no complaint about its legitimacy.
Then too, the founders were visionaries — creating a government that did not own powers, but had powers only available for exercise as a result of a consented-to delegation. That’s not a fantasy; that’s the real world they built — and it’s the one you deride.
P.S. As an aside — if you have to resort to name-calling to make a point, it’s probably best to take a beat and see if you can make it without. It’s frankly a waste of electrons.
@RCOCEAN II
I’m assuming you’re willing to have this conversation in good faith, so let me ask a few things. You’re raising real concerns about judicial overreach, but I’m curious how you see the checks we already have working — or not working — in practice:
If judges can “do anything,” what’s the actual check on that power?
We have a check against all branches of government for the removal of officers — for the judiciary, it’s impeachment. Why isn’t it used more often?
To be fair, impeachment is rarely used for any officer. Why do you think that is?
If the check doesn’t work in practice, what’s the path back?
Working around the judiciary isn’t really a remedy — it just shifts the problem somewhere else. What’s the lasting fix?
And isn’t the whole point of a republic’s separation of powers to prevent any branch from becoming dominant?
I’ll take answers from the whole class. lol
35% of American citizens already leave the voting up to others anyway?
I have no doubt that many mail in votes are often filled out by one member of the household already, and the more unhinged you are (TDS) the more likely it's you doing it..
Robert Cook said...
"You are a stupid person Cook. You are a lazy thinker."
"Not a very intelligent or useful response to my correct description of the worst POTUS in our Republic's history.
A lazy response."
That's, like, YOUR opinion, man.
I'm a Bastiatan absolutist on this issue. It doesn't matter if you let goats and chimpanzees vote as long as you laws protecting individuals from plunder by the state.
"4. But, ooh, that terrible Hegseth!"
Is his terribleness in doubt. To me, this fourth point from Althouse seems to mock the idea he's terrible.
He (assuming the rape allegation isn't true, iow giving hime the benefit of the doubt) had sex with a married woman while another woman was carrying his baby, and this other woman was a woman that he had sex with while he was married to someone else.
Also, his only management experience was running two very small organizations into the ground. Plus he can't staff his office at the Pentagon and he sucks at operational security.
So, he's garbage at morality and management.
Sure, that may be a good combo for being an effective TV host of weekends at Fox News. If Althouse's point is that he's not terrible at that....okay, I agree.
Wilson is in favor of the voting as households idea: https://youtu.be/LrzCW3rdTjA?si=JBumWf2A4Ng8NzTg
Hegseth didn't simply repost it; he reposted it approvingly.
Freeman, you write as if you think that is a bad idea
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.