We can disagree on how effective we might think such a rule would be. One point the residency rule would do is force lobbying efforts to become MUCH more expensive and localized. Instead of having a single office in Washington, D.C., they would have to have offices in up to 100 areas of the nation just to go after individual senators. Ultimately, lobbying is about ROI.

I do not disagree that gerrymandering is a problem, but this proposal was not meant to deal with gerrymandering.

Foreigners who want to become US citizens already have to pass tests in English, US history, and civics. There are US citizens who don't speak English, but they got their citizenship by birth (either here or by being born to US parents).

Why not civil service checks too? Most of those people are unnecessary, and many of the worst legislators owe their jobs to civil servants.

That rule would have zero effect on lobbying, though some lobbying jobs would change hands. (If I wanted to give funds to politician X for favors, I'd just find a lobbyist who lives in X's district and give him/her some cash.) But it would screw people like me, who are gerrymandered into being in the minority in our own home districts.

I totally agree that there should be no government unions, but we already have a lack of qualified people working in government. I'm not sold on the idea of taking away their voting rights because it would be a huge disincentive. On the other hand, I do think it fair to say that a government worker wouldn't be in the majority to vote for smaller government if it meant putting himself or his friend out of work. I'm still on the fence on this one. I can see arguments for both sides.

I didn't overlook it, I merely pointed out that your proposal merely blunts the knife - it doesn't take the knife away. Aside from being too complex for my tastes, it doesn't go far enough for my sentiments. I fall in line with Benjamin Franklin when he said

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

I posted this one, too -- good article! -- j
.

Just to make sure you understand fully - under this scheme every government employee or government contractor, including employees of such contractors, would be considered a 100% tax consumer and therefore get no voting rights at all.

That part you got right, but you appeared to overlook the more important fact that only the 100% non--moochers get a full vote. Want to guess who controls the purse strings in that scenario? Hint, it''s not the moochers.

I'm actually part of the 'establishment' I suppose - just received an email asking me if I would like to be a delegate at Cleveland, etc. I'm in county-level politics, I probably see more of the mess than most.

Behind closed doors, Cruz has been crying foul at just about every opportunity he gets - "its the open primaries", etc.. He actually started laying out his campaign about 5-6 years ago, as to what it would take, and he's been using voter turnout numbers from the last election in the strategy where evangelicals largely stayed home. Call it the mormon thing, the odd mannerisms of the candidate, being the only one out of 350 million Americans that couldn't really directly criticize ObamaCare, or a mixture of all of those.

His campaign has been completely designed from the ground up with rhetoric to attract the evangelical voter, but assuming that all other votes would remain the same. Unfortunately, we are in an anti-establishment and disruptive cycle of politics, so the rhetoric and strategy as-designed is 4 years out of date. He also never anticipated a non-traditional candidate. Neither did Hillary you might say.

I think we're both getting at the same thing, I don't sense that either of us are particularly invested in this at a personal level (I know I'm not), and I agree, the exchange is interesting.

I actually get a lot of personal satisfaction out of watching the powers that be crumbling into an abysmal black hole of depression over things not going their way.

I'd personally really like to see both Kasich and Rubio get out (very soon), just to settle the question of Cruz vs Trump, if Cruz wins, I'll vote all day for him. I've been just arguing that he is not the super-candidate the ultra-right has made him out to be. If that was the case, the South should have been a cakewalk. He actually took his largest shellacking in the South (in contrast).

It's really about the party being very, very out of touch with their constituents, and the anti-voter sentiment that has developed is very alarming. Romney taking to the airwaves and the phone banks is particularly insulting, as he's advocating Cruz in some states, Rubio in others, and Kasich in Ohio... he's only trying to setup a situation where he can swoop in at the election or some non-sense like that, anyone that can't see that is particularly dense.

One thing I know we will both agree on, is if they pull the hoodwinks over at the convention and nullify the will of the voters, be it Trump or Cruz, I think we'll see the end of the Republican party.

In a hilarious twist of fate, the Democrat contest is equally rigged. The 'Super Delegates' are somehow standing 100% with Hillary, practically nullifying Bernie's wins. I think we may legitimately see a situation where Bernie wins the voter-driven delegate count, or comes so close so as to not guarantee a Hillary win prior to the convention, say its 52 to 48% or something, and then the 'Super Delegates' break 100% for Hillary... you might see a severe civil war in their ranks as well.

This is what has become so corrupt about our system, and the one thing that I really do like about Trump. Traditionally, the barrier to entry is enormous, you have to 'pay your dues'... you need to be out walking precincts for 3 elections before you can really even get some help running for school board. Before I learned the 'process' - I did it the hard way, I walked the precinct and got signatures for my name to go on the ballot and filed my paperwork. The party didn't endorse me, and instead, they went with the guy that they 'liked'. I found out later how that 'works' - they bring in all the party people to drinks at a bar and pass the nomination papers around and everyone signs them over beers & scrapes the peanuts off... that's how you get backed in California. In a large state, the cost is unimaginable for the media time, so you need that party support. Trump turned that on its ear and no one saw him coming.

Years ago, I saw and endorsed the most articulate, conservative, and brilliant [black] Republican candidate I had seen in a long time for a state office, the party picked 'the other guy' because he happened to be an attorney for Yes on Prop 8 (the gay marriage ban). The guy I liked had lived in the district for 30 years, had been on school board, community college board, volunteered extensively at his church, volunteered at every charity in town, and was the Chief of Staff for another elected official downtown for the last 6 years. Couldn't pick a better guy, but he wasn't 'their' guy - so they refused to endorse him. Let's add that the Yes on 8 guy didn't actually live in the district, he rented a 1 bedroom apartment for a mailbox and called it good, needless to say the Democrat opponent sniffed that out in 30 seconds... like, what's a high-dollar attorney doing living in a $400 / month dump? Of course, it didn't go well, and a seat that had been Republican since the beginning of time for a district that is about 12% Veteran and a per-capita income north of $80,000 was lost.

So, I'm not terribly invested into any one of these guys, I'm just really, really enjoying watching both parties get their asses handed to them with their dirty laundry on the line.. It would seem, that how the sausage is made is finally being done out in the open.

I sincerely hope both will learn something from this, but I really, really doubt it.

I agree with a test for voting. When I suggested it on this website a year ago, people condemned it saying it would inevitably turn into a partisan tool, with the parties trying to exclude the other party's voters and/or trying to get ideological opinion questions added to the test.

This article unintentionally shows the slippery slope the test could take. The article starts off saying it shouldn't be seen as a duty to vote even if you don't know what the election is about. It says you should have to get at least a 70% on a ten-question test of basic facts to vote.

Then he says you should vote if you don't pay taxes. Everyone pays taxes, but I assume he means income taxes. Now we're talking about excluding half the population. We'd be excluding disabled people, people retired on a modest income, people who had a bad year in business. Then he goes on implies that youth, excessive drinking, and being single, not being involved in community organizations should disqualify voters. You can see it quickly sliding into a vote for a narrow group of people. If we got there, the elections would be decided by the committee that determines who gets to vote rather than the people. He says "the system is rigged," in reference to our current system, but it sounds more like his proposed system.

So while I strongly disagree with how he presents this, I agree with his initial claim: there should be some basic test of facts to vote. It wouldn't be perfect. Ignorant people would still vote. But it would be a little harder. There would be a little less effort by campaigns to reach voters who hardly know what's going on and may just hear a few soundbites on the radio when they pass by it. This article unintentionally illustrates, though, once voting rights aren't sacrosanct, there's the risk of voting being decided by people like this author with a laundry list of traits that make you ineligible to vote.

I thought I read that you wanted voting rights to be inversely proportionate to the amount of money being derived from the government. What I was pointing out was that someone who was only a 10% moocher would still get a 90% vote under your scheme, a 50% looter would still get 50% of a vote, etc. Did I misunderstand your post?

I didn't really catch anything in that first paragraph. Cruz is loathed by the establishment GOP just as much - if not more - as Trump. Whether or not you buy the conclusions of the article is up to you - I thought it was well laid out and persuasive and worth mentioning.

"I'm not buying the argument that Trump loses against Hillary or Bernie"

I'm just reporting what polling is saying. Until the vote actually takes place, it's all just speculation anyway.

"If Cruz was benefiting from it, he wouldn't be complaining about the open primary process. "

I've never heard any such complaints. The last thing I heard was Cruz rejecting the idea of a brokered convention and letting the votes go where they lie. From a person still in second place, that's pretty remarkable to me.

"He basically insulted everyone in the state of New York"

I'd go back and re-read what Cruz actually said. He criticized New York-style politics (which are decidedly liberal/progressive) and associated Donald Trump with that because of his acknowledged participation in them and his payments to New York Democrats as "the price of business". If you really want to get into the gaffes, Trump's description of Iowans as "stupid" is notable (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/poli.... That is Trump very literally insulting everyone in the state of Iowa.

"if you flip New York & New Jersey, its game-over for the democrats"

Very true, but also very hard to pull off. They were saying the same thing about Romney, too. Remember, Hillary Clinton was a Senator from New York State. I think it would be incredibly idealistic to pull that lever at this juncture. I'm not saying he couldn't do it - especially if Hillary actually gets indicted - but I think you paint a much rosier picture than I do at this point in time. The same for California. I'd love to see them vote for a change, but I don't see the prospect with more than a 15% chance of happening.

"And while you are correct that Trump attacked Megyn Kelly (and kind of rightfully so based on her questioning during that debate),"

Ah, so it is justified to attack someone in the press with disgusting and vile language because you don't like a question they ask? Not buying that one. Civility is marked by those who ignore the incivility in others. Again it comes back to self-control. If it is that easy to push "The Donald's" buttons, can you imagine what might happen when he talks to certain foreign dignitaries, like from China, Iran, or Russia? And what about when Trump is the instigator? Are you willing to call him out as the bully? He was the first one to go after Ted Cruz as "nasty"...

"Contrary, we can make the same argument about Rubio"

Agreed. Both sides are making idiots of themselves. But they are also both playing the game. It's the sign of a narcissist when even the perceived slight is something one can't let go.

"the assumption that just because someone is evangelical, that they 'must' vote for an evangelical candidate."

I don't know who is making that assumption. I'm certainly not. I didn't pull the lever last night for Cruz because of his religious views. Besides that, didn't Donald Trump make a big deal about being a Christian, too? I think you're reading a lot more into that issue than really exists.

"Cruz is out there saying he will 'defund Planned Parenthood' and pretty much without really looking at the facts... Trump in contrast is 'correctly' saying that they do a lot of critical work for young women without much income."

That's an ideological stance that differs not one whit from Hillary Clinton, which is why Cruz is pointing it out. Cruz is focused on conservative voters and a hot-button issue with them. Remember, Romney lost in part because he couldn't present a clear alternative to Obama on key issues like the ACA.

"I'll stand on the podium every time and say that it is cheaper to hand out free contraception than welfare benefits for single moms."

And if that's how PP made most of its money, I doubt there would be as much uproar about the matter - aside from the fact that we both know there is no such thing as a free handout of any kind.

Again, you're welcome to vote how you see fit and I sincerely appreciate the pleasant discussion. What I am looking for is a President who respects the rule of law and the Office of President of the United States. If Donald Trump fits that category, great. If not, he really will be the biggest con man in this century (or maybe second behind Barack Obama). Romney was laughed to scorn during his debate with Obama when he cited Putin and Russia as still the greatest threat to the United States. Romney turned out to be dead on. I hope he isn't right on Trump as well.

You're missing the key point that in my scheme the looters get no vote at all.

Most people pay sales taxes at the store. They
are "paying into the system". Seeing how irration-
ally the public schools are run, I do not want any
fifth-grade exam determining who may and who
may not vote.
That said, I do not approve of agitating
people to vote who do not care to. My idea is,
if you want to vote for my candidate, vote. If
you want to vote for his opponent, well, maybe
you would benefit from a little more time in bed
before you went to work, and maybe you won't
have time then, and that's all right.That is to
say: If you don't want to vote, you probably
shouldn't.

The data shows that some protected groups of people do have lower percentage of certain IDs... disparate impact based on what is not what reasonably could easily be done. Of late disparate impact standard seems to be not enough Democratic Party candidates getting elected.

Your points are well-taken, I'm not necessarily taking exception to them, I'm pointing out what I think are flaws in the GOPe argument. The same data is the proof, democrat primary turnout is down by the same numbers that republican turnout is 'up' in the same state if an open primary and Trump seems to benefit... so I'm not buying the argument that Trump loses against Hillary or Bernie. If Cruz was benefiting from it, he wouldn't be complaining about the open primary process.

As I said though, Cruz's enemy isn't his politics, its his mannerisms. He basically insulted everyone in the state of New York for example as 'questionable politics', or however he put it. Instead of attacking Trump, he chose to attack 30 million people for example without acknowledging that Trump polls very highly in New York and New Jersey. As I said in a previous post, electoral points win elections, not votes, if you flip New York & New Jersey, its game-over for the democrats. I'd argue he could easily take California as well, as we are mostly a red-state with a few urban outcroppings (all but 6 California counties normally vote 'red'). Flip enough in the urban areas and California is very much in play. Cruz would never be successful at that, he's kind of hispanic, but he's Cuban, not really hispanic in the sense of Mexican or Central American. Over 50% of California is hispanic. The Southern baptist preacher thing is popular in Texas politics, but nowhere else... his assumption was that it would be in the south, but that's just not proving it.

And while you are correct that Trump attacked Megyn Kelly (and kind of rightfully so based on her questioning during that debate), he has since been very gracious to her and she's very endearing of him it seems on election nights. In fact he was complimenting her in his news conference last night and they flipped to her and she smiled/blushed/etc. He's a gentleman when he wants to be. I've seen Megyn simply asking other candidates when they are going to get out of the race because they have no chance.

Contrary, we can make the same argument about Rubio, he has acted like a spoiled frat boy the last couple of weeks, his own antics have sealed his fate while trying to point out Trump's faults. He made himself look like a total fool in the process.

And here's my last criticism of the approach - the assumption that just because someone is evangelical, that they 'must' vote for an evangelical candidate. Isn't that kind of like saying that a black voter 'must' vote for a black candidate, or a female 'must' vote for a female? If the last was true, this would have been over yesterday, but its not. In fact, 35% of evangelicals say they are pro-choice (for example). I was in the dentist yesterday and the girl doing my teeth cleaning was (for some reason I'll never understand) talking about health insurance and how she had went to get an IUD after recently getting married and they told her it would be $1200 after her insurance paid its share, but $800 if she bought the device online from Canada... but then instead went to Planned Parenthood and it was free. Cruz is out there saying he will 'defund Planned Parenthood' and pretty much without really looking at the facts... Trump in contrast is 'correctly' saying that they do a lot of critical work for young women without much income. I'll stand on the podium every time and say that it is cheaper to hand out free contraception than welfare benefits for single moms... We can debate the fact that the guy is a willing participant and should do the right thing and join the military & take care of business... but we all know that is a small number, most of them bail out and the kid grows up in poverty. Attacking the institution that is the only thing preventing that (not belittling their obvious sins), is offensive to big chunks of America. My wife and I are comfortably in that horrible wealthy group that doesn't 'pay our fair share of taxes', but my wife went to Planned Parenthood when she was a young woman in college to get the things she needed, and she won't touch voting for Cruz for that single issue reason. We're also Catholic and she thinks evangelicals are pretty much a cult, but I won't get into that either. Suffice it to say, Cruz isn't winning big with Catholics either, a much larger group than evangelicals.

Trump's strategy (what I'm saying) is pretty darn genius, the only people he has legitimately offended, are also people that can't vote or vote against him (illegal immigrants).

Not an unreasonable conclusion, unfortunately.

The problem there is that you still have the problem of people who are primarily looters getting to determine what producers can do. Not to mention the logistical or legal problems of partial votes. It's an interesting idea, but one that I think would get bogged down in complexity.

"What about women at home?"

In states where property ownership is declared as joint for married couples, that's not a problem. It certainly might be in states where married couples must still file individually.

"You go to the welfare line, and you sign away voting before you get your check."

YES!

"while its certainly true that he is very much attracting independents and disenfranchised Blue Dog Democrats, I fail to either see where that is a problem"

I wasn't holding it as a problem per se, merely an indication of how the current system isn't representative of the majority of the people as per your observation. The original thrust of the article was to analyze whether or not Trump's popularity was coming from the traditional/conservative base of the Republican party or somewhere else and the author looked at whether or not the voting primaries were open or closed in nature. What he noted was that Trump was losing in states with closed primaries and winning in states with open primaries. He also noted that overall participation in the Democratic primaries was down about the same number of votes that the Republican primaries were up year-over-year. It was a strong correlation pointing to the base of Donald Trump's support not being conservative in nature, but rather strongly libertarian or what once would have been called the "blue-dog Democrat" - those disenfranchised by the Democratic Party's move farther left.

"that only indicates to me that Cruz is just not attractive in a general election"

With only polling data to go from (as reliable as that is), that isn't a well-founded belief, however. In national polls comparing candidates head-to-head, both Rubio and Cruz beat Hillary and Sanders head-to-head. "The Donald" loses to Hillary (though he defeated Sanders). See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...

I also saw another analysis that noted that Trump's support had peaked out at about 38% and hasn't moved in months, while the winnowing of the Republican field has seen both Rubio and Cruz steadily climb in favorability polls in the Republican Party. That article suggested that "The Donald" had peaked and that he was winning because so many candidates were still in the field fighting for each others' votes. Of course, by the time Rubio and Kasich drop out, it may well be a moot point because Florida in particular is a winner-take-all state. If Trump gets it because the rest of the vote is split, it's going to be very difficult for Cruz to overcome the vote gap.

"Cruz and his people are so arrogant that they can't possibly imagine that not everyone sees his point of view."

I'd suggest you watch several of Ted Cruz' town hall meetings. He's talked face to face with people who staunchly oppose him yet he is polite while explaining to them why he feels the way he does. Iowa was a classic example where he was able to convince a majority of the voters that even though he opposed the subsidies which were their life, he explained how eliminating ALL the subsidies would be better for everyone. (http://www.nbcnews.com/video/iowa-vot...) Does he feel strongly about things? Yes, because he holds to specific principles. But seeing someone else's point of view does not mean I have to change mine. I think you may be confusing the two.

The second part of that particular comment with which I must take issue is the insinuation that Trump doesn't engage in that type of behavior. Trump's vulgar personal attacks on everyone from Megyn Kelly to Marco Rubio to basically everyone else demonstrate that Trump is an even worse offender than your perception of Cruz. Short of [maybe] Hillary Clinton, there isn't a candidate still in the race as narcissistic as Donald Trump. Does he have some ideas I agree with? Yes. My primary concern with Trump is whether or not he will choose to limit himself to the duties of the Office of the President when he has already come out in favor of Executive Orders as a means of advancing policy/agenda. I don't want another Emperor-wanna-be. I don't want a reality TV show star who just wants time in the limelight. I want someone who's principles take us to free markets and an original interpretation of the Constitution. I am the least wary of Cruz abusing the position. Hillary tops that list, but Trump isn't too far behind.

"...you would think he as a trial lawyer would understand that."

As a lawyer who defended - successfully I might add - both the First and Second Amendments before the Supreme Court, I think he understands it better than any other candidate hands down. And his conduct when confronted in town hall meetings and rallies by oppositionists only reinforces that opinion in me. I've watched Donald Trump's behavior and he frankly comes off so similar to Obama (petulant, whiny, angry, and accusational when he loses vs. incredibly arrogant and condescending when he wins) that it's tremendously off-putting to me. The last person I want in the White House is someone who can be so easily goaded to lose one's temper. That's the hallmark of a person of remarkably little self-control.

Because, apparently, the government is so incompetent at giving out ID cards that it is an unreasonable burden on the disadvantaged.

So say the people who want the government to control our health care -- and really all aspects of our lives.

The idea of eliminating non-taxpayers goes too far. A college student, or PhD candidate for that matter, may not yet be paying tax, but s/he will almost inevitably have gained sufficient political awareness to weigh up the various candidates on offer, and will have seen the effects different politicians and parties have had on the population.

Ditto for forcing a narrow voting window. That is an appalling suggestion that can easily be used to exclude entire classes of voters. For example, slashing the number of voting venues in areas with high black or Hispanic populations, forcing them to queue up for the full 12 hours with, even then, no guarantee of getting a vote in. Meanwhile, in the comfortable white middle/upper class areas, plenty of polling stations where people can come in, validate themselves, cast their votes and be out in 2 minutes before a warden puts a ticket on their double-parked BMW.

As for the civics test - there might be some merit in this, just as long as candidates can sit it in their own language. For example, some specialist engineer freshly recently in from Norway, but just gained voting rights, might have the most appalling English, but have good intelligence and general awareness about the USA. Why should s/he be denied a vote?

They already do, along with another Open Borders advocate on the right, i.e. RUPERT MURDOCH, owner of FOX.

As for restrictions, I do not believe it unreasonable to require a picture ID to vote. We do so to cash checks, clear customs, get on an airplane. I fail to see how requiring a picture ID is racist when so many other daily activities require the ability to produce a picture ID. Just the other day, I opened up a loyalty card with a supermarket chain and they required me to show my state issued driver's license. I had no objection and handed it over. The same simple precautions should apply when it comes to voting.