NationStates Jolt Archive


Voting Shouldn't be an Absolute Right.

Myrmidonisia
23-01-2005, 23:18
I think too many people vote in elections. I don't think I'm the only one with this opinion, either. There are stupid people, crazy people, lazy people, productive people, and apathetic people in the United States. All of them over the age of 18, with some exceptions have the right to vote. I think that was guaranteed in the 19th amendment. Some amendment near that number, anyway.

I think we should test people a couple different ways before we confer the privilege of voting. First, I think the candidate voter should be a producer in society, not a consumer. That means the voting public will actually fund the government, not reap the rewards of laziness or stupidity. Or illness. I don't think that receiving disability payments from the government should entitle one to vote. There's insurance for that sort of thing.

Second, I don't think really stupid people should be allowed to vote. For example, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old shouldn't be trusted to make rational decisions about government.

Last, I like the idea of owning real property as a qualification for voting. That's impractical for everyone, though. Producing wealth for the economy should be enough. I'm sort of serious about this and my intentions aren't to get anyone upset, just to stir up some thinking about who is voting in our elections.
L-rouge
23-01-2005, 23:23
I think too many people vote in elections. I don't think I'm the only one with this opinion, either. There are stupid people, crazy people, lazy people, productive people, and apathetic people in the United States. All of them over the age of 18, with some exceptions have the right to vote. I think that was guaranteed in the 19th amendment. Some amendment near that number, anyway.

I think we should test people a couple different ways before we confer the privilege of voting. First, I think the candidate voter should be a producer in society, not a consumer. That means the voting public will actually fund the government, not reap the rewards of laziness or stupidity. Or illness. I don't think that receiving disability payments from the government should entitle one to vote. There's insurance for that sort of thing.

Second, I don't think really stupid people should be allowed to vote. For example, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old shouldn't be trusted to make rational decisions about government.

Last, I like the idea of owning real property as a qualification for voting. That's impractical for everyone, though. Producing wealth for the economy should be enough. I'm sort of serious about this and my intentions aren't to get anyone upset, just to stir up some thinking about who is voting in our elections.
But surely if people have to pass some form of, for want of a better word, means test, it automatically forces out those who care about their country and who leads/controls it?
Zekhaust
23-01-2005, 23:24
I think too many people vote in elections. I don't think I'm the only one with this opinion, either. There are stupid people, crazy people, lazy people, productive people, and apathetic people in the United States. All of them over the age of 18, with some exceptions have the right to vote. I think that was guaranteed in the 19th amendment. Some amendment near that number, anyway.

I think we should test people a couple different ways before we confer the privilege of voting. First, I think the candidate voter should be a producer in society, not a consumer. That means the voting public will actually fund the government, not reap the rewards of laziness or stupidity. Or illness. I don't think that receiving disability payments from the government should entitle one to vote. There's insurance for that sort of thing.

Second, I don't think really stupid people should be allowed to vote. For example, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old shouldn't be trusted to make rational decisions about government.

Last, I like the idea of owning real property as a qualification for voting. That's impractical for everyone, though. Producing wealth for the economy should be enough. I'm sort of serious about this and my intentions aren't to get anyone upset, just to stir up some thinking about who is voting in our elections.

I see your thinking, something like a drivers liscense test to get a voting permit? That'd be an interesting concept.

I think the beauty of the system is that everyone gets to vote, as the person who wins represents a majority of the country. This can be argued, but the point is that someone who is elected by a certain qualified few does not represent the entire nation as a whole.

Of course you could take it like a survey, "1000 people say blah, blah and blag." But still, I like the idea of everyone voting.

Anyway, life is a bit more fun when its random.
The Hitler Jugend
23-01-2005, 23:24
I think too many people vote in elections. I don't think I'm the only one with this opinion, either. There are stupid people, crazy people, lazy people, productive people, and apathetic people in the United States. All of them over the age of 18, with some exceptions have the right to vote. I think that was guaranteed in the 19th amendment. Some amendment near that number, anyway.

I think we should test people a couple different ways before we confer the privilege of voting. First, I think the candidate voter should be a producer in society, not a consumer. That means the voting public will actually fund the government, not reap the rewards of laziness or stupidity. Or illness. I don't think that receiving disability payments from the government should entitle one to vote. There's insurance for that sort of thing.

Second, I don't think really stupid people should be allowed to vote. For example, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old shouldn't be trusted to make rational decisions about government.

Last, I like the idea of owning real property as a qualification for voting. That's impractical for everyone, though. Producing wealth for the economy should be enough. I'm sort of serious about this and my intentions aren't to get anyone upset, just to stir up some thinking about who is voting in our elections.

I couldnt have said it better myself.
Nadkor
23-01-2005, 23:25
you cant legitimately tax the people who arent allowed to vote

so they get government services for free

so taxes on those who can vote go up

are you sure you want that?
Superpower07
23-01-2005, 23:26
-snip-
This is the same elitist style of thinking that our country was NOT founded upon
The Hitler Jugend
23-01-2005, 23:27
you cant legitimately tax the people who arent allowed to vote

so we will ammend that law. problen solved.
Fernhach
23-01-2005, 23:30
The first people exempted from voting should be those who make such suggestions on internet forums.
Nadkor
23-01-2005, 23:30
so we will ammend that law. problen solved.
good for you

giving the people a reason to revolt is always a good idea
The Hitler Jugend
23-01-2005, 23:31
good for you

giving the people a reason to revolt is always a good idea

Then we put down the revolts with force
Slinao
23-01-2005, 23:32
so the nation is lead by the rich, land owners that can afford to educate themselves, and those people that are disabled are to be ruled by the aristocrats, as it was before USA was founded, thus making everything America has stood for, means nothing...

You think too many people vote, yet less then half the people vote as it is, so lets cut it down even farther, and then you have the nation being ruled by an even less proportonial minority, good way to run a republic...riiiight.

oh, people that think the world is like 6000 years old, so you're talking about the jews mainly? oh, the people that gave money to america so that it could fight against England, and was so well thanked, that the star of david was put on every dollar in america?

While we are at it, lets get rid of any people that feel they are better then others, because they can't vote for the populace, they will only vote for themselves, and lets get rid of people that follow any government that is from a nation once or currently at war with america, so that there is no conflict of interests.
Gnostikos
23-01-2005, 23:33
That reasoning soon brings us into an oligarchy. What you propose is to take away the political freedom guaranteed to every non-convicted felonious citizen over the age of 18. I personally believe that while in prison, voting may be taken away, but after you're released you should certainly have all of your rights restored, especially voting. If we restrict who may vote on issues like productivity, then we are destroying the beauty of a democratic government. Democracy is government by the people; "power", kratia by the "people", dêmos. Dêmos more accurately means "the common man", and to take that right from anyone is just...wrong. Granted, there are some special circumstances, like severe mental retardation, that I believe people should not be permitted to vote, but requiring an IQ or anything like that lets the camel get his nose in the tent, and that frightens me what might then happen.
The Hitler Jugend
23-01-2005, 23:34
so the nation is lead by the rich, land owners that can afford to educate themselves, and those people that are disabled are to be ruled by the aristocrats, as it was before USA was founded, thus making everything America has stood for, means nothing...

You think too many people vote, yet less then half the people vote as it is, so lets cut it down even farther, and then you have the nation being ruled by an even less proportonial minority, good way to run a republic...riiiight.

The only way to better society is to raise the bar. We cannot allow for lesser individuals to live in our society.
Nadkor
23-01-2005, 23:34
Then we put down the revolts with force
you might want to ban private ownership of guns before you do that
Slinao
23-01-2005, 23:36
The only way to better society is to raise the bar. We cannot allow for lesser individuals to live in our society.
I added a bit more to my post, was in the process when you quoted me.
Theologian Theory
23-01-2005, 23:36
so the nation is lead by the rich, land owners that can afford to educate themselves

errr.....are you being ironic? :confused:
Vonners
23-01-2005, 23:37
disenfranchisement will only be accomplished from the barrel of a gun
The Hitler Jugend
23-01-2005, 23:38
I added a bit more to my post, was in the process when you quoted me.

Ok, but that doesnt change my position.
Fernhach
23-01-2005, 23:39
oh, people that think the world is like 6000 years old, so you're talking about the jews mainly?
I think he was referring to Creationists.

The only way to better society is to raise the bar. We cannot allow for lesser individuals to live in our society.
Du glaubst wohl mit deinem tollen Loginnamen bist Du was besseres? Odds are you don't even speak German.
Slinao
23-01-2005, 23:39
Ok, but that doesnt change my position.
didn't say it would, in fact I figured it wouldn't, but I was informing you that my post had changed, and giving you the heads up to read it, in case you missed it.
Slinao
23-01-2005, 23:42
I think he was referring to Creationists.


Du glaubst wohl mit deinem tollen Loginnamen bist Du was besseres? Odds are you don't even speak German.

Creationists follow the jewish belief of the age of the earth is less then 6000 years.

that bit in german, was that towards me?
Robbopolis
23-01-2005, 23:43
I think we should test people a couple different ways before we confer the privilege of voting. First, I think the candidate voter should be a producer in society, not a consumer. That means the voting public will actually fund the government, not reap the rewards of laziness or stupidity. Or illness. I don't think that receiving disability payments from the government should entitle one to vote. There's insurance for that sort of thing.

What about people who both pay taxes and recieve help from the government, such as myself? And are we going to say that people who use government funds that they have payed into earlier in life, such as Social Security, cannot vote to protect that which they have helped fund?

Second, I don't think really stupid people should be allowed to vote. For example, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old shouldn't be trusted to make rational decisions about government.

Watch it. You're very close to stopping members of certain religions from voting. Massive First Amendment issues. What's next? People who support teh right to bear arms are considered stupid and can't vote either?

Last, I like the idea of owning real property as a qualification for voting. That's impractical for everyone, though. Producing wealth for the economy should be enough. I'm sort of serious about this and my intentions aren't to get anyone upset, just to stir up some thinking about who is voting in our elections.

So you can vote only if you are a producing member of the economy? What about retired folks? I think the AARP will want to hang you from the rafters. Sounds like we're back to the idea of a poll tax, which was outlawed years ago.
The Hitler Jugend
23-01-2005, 23:44
While we are at it, lets get rid of any people that feel they are better then others, because they can't vote for the populace, they will only vote for themselves, and lets get rid of people that follow any government that is from a nation once or currently at war with america, so that there is no conflict of interests.

This is illogical thinking. Everyone votes for themselves. Everyone votes based on which party/person will benefit them most.
And as far as getting rid of peole who think they are better than others......you'd be getting rid of all intelligent people. Certain people are better than others, thats a fact of life. An austistic child in a wheelchair is not equal to a fully functioning child. Thats a fact of life.
Fernhach
23-01-2005, 23:44
Creationists follow the jewish belief of the age of the earth is less then 6000 years.
True, but I don't think he really kenows of that, let alone consdered it in his post. I could be wrong, of course.

that bit in german, was that towards me?
Nope, towards HJ. I can PM you a translation if you want to.

And as far as getting rid of peole who think they are better than others......you'd be getting rid of all intelligent people. Certain people are better than others, thats a fact of life. An austistic child in a wheelchair is not equal to a fully functioning child. Thats a fact of life.
... and for all I know, even in America, people who cannot support themselves and need a legal guardian throughout their lives aren't eligible to vote, all the more as registering as a voter (as is nescessary in the states) is a task they're utterly unfit to do.

Or were you referring more to the gas chamber type solution?
Superpower07
23-01-2005, 23:46
Voting should NOT be a privellege - doing so makes our country that much more elitist
Slinao
23-01-2005, 23:48
True, but I don't think he really kenows of that, let alone consdered it in his post. I could be wrong, of course.
Thats true, and that would put him as one of the less educated ones, thus removing his right to vote.

Nope, towards HJ. I can PM you a translation if you want to.

I was just curious, its all good.
Superpower07
23-01-2005, 23:51
-that link-
Wow, what a way to get yourself IGNORED!
Armed Bookworms
23-01-2005, 23:53
Creationists follow the jewish belief of the age of the earth is less then 6000 years.
Bull. The age of the earth was "calculated" by some random catholic preist, if I remember correctly. http://courses.science.fau.edu/~rjordan/phy1931/AGE/age.htm
Slinao
23-01-2005, 23:54
This is illogical thinking. Everyone votes for themselves. Everyone votes based on which party/person will benefit them most.
And as far as getting rid of peole who think they are better than others......you'd be getting rid of all intelligent people. Certain people are better than others, thats a fact of life. An austistic child in a wheelchair is not equal to a fully functioning child. Thats a fact of life.

well, if everyone votes for themselves, then there is no need to make it selective. Since its already selective in itself. If you are limiting the vote to benefit the nation, then it should be voted upon with the interests of the nation at hand, not the person.
People vote with their party based on the belief that they feel its whats best for the nation. I've known a lot of highly intelligent people that didn't feel they were better, just smarter, there is a difference. Arrogence is the death of kings, and why would you want to be ruled by people that feel they are better. Its why the kingdom setup has died back to near nothing in the modern world.
Superpower07
23-01-2005, 23:54
You screwed up that link lol
Silly kids and their porn...
CA totally screwed up my point
Slinao
23-01-2005, 23:56
Bull. The age of the earth was "calculated" by some random catholic preist, if I remember correctly. http://courses.science.fau.edu/~rjordan/phy1931/AGE/age.htm

umm, try again, have you ever seen a jewish calander? or are you one of those people that don't know much about religion but thinks they do?

It is year, 5765 by the jewish calander, in the month of Shevat, I believe, though my calander is missing currently.
Zeppistan
24-01-2005, 00:00
the whole "producers can vote, consumers cannot" intrigues me.

Are you saying that if a government implements unsound fiscal policy leading to high unemployment that those who lost their jobs also lose their right to kick the administrations out?

Or are you saying that only business owners have the integrity to vote properly? And that their agenda will properly reflect the best interests of the general public?

And in today's corporate world - what constitutes a "business owner"?

Any way you slice this idea - it reeks.
Teranius
24-01-2005, 00:00
This is the same elitist style of thinking that our country was NOT founded upon

Then why weren't blacks given the right to vote, or Native Americans? The Electoral Congress was created because the Founding Fathers mistrusted true mass democracy.

EDIT- I mostly agree with this. I don't think constantly unemployed people (by choice/laziness, not by hardship) who just eat up welfare should be allowed to vote. I believe that a single question test would be all that is required. It would look something like this:

What type of government is the United States?
[ ] Democracy
[ ] Republic

Anyone that chooses democracy doesn't get to vote. Simple.
Superpower07
24-01-2005, 00:05
Then why weren't blacks given the right to vote, or Native Americans? The Electoral Congress was created because the Founding Fathers mistrusted true mass democracy.
There were a bunch of ppl who did advocate those two groups getting the rights . . . unfortunately they got struck down by the more "conservative" revolutionaries
Fernhach
24-01-2005, 00:08
Heh ... so you only need to convert the lunisolar years to our Gregorian standard, fiddle with all these crazy exceptional years and stuff, add a day (I think), and after a hard week's work, you have the age of the earth! Or rather, what Jews believe it is.

Today is the 14th of Shevat, 5765, btw.
Nurcia
24-01-2005, 00:13
My reccomendation for how to restrict voting rights would work on the following basis:

In order to vote each person must include a typed five page (double spaced, 12 point, Times font) paper explaining why they feel the candidate they are voting for should hold office.

1. If the paper at any point resorts to referring to the opposing candidate as a "crazed fundamentalist nazi who will kill millions of people and eat their babies" or as a "crazed athiest communist who will raise taxes to pay for his gay marriage to *insert hated foreign leader*" or any such language the vote will automatically be thrown out.

2. Any reference to being "hot" "sexy" or similar terms as a reason for choosing this candidate will result in deletion of the vote.

3. Any statement which shows that the potential voter has utterly unrealistic expectations, about what their candidate can accomplish will lose their vote. Examples include a belief that the candidate can lower taxes, raise spending, and not run a deficit, or a belief that the candidate will be able to get the government to pay for your medical bills, send you large sums of money for no particular reason, instantly make you loved by all fellow citizens, water your lawn, walk the dog, and wash your car.

4. Anyone who sites hatred of a particular group (gays, christians, etc.) as a reason for their vote.

5. Anyone who at any point cites a conspiracy theory with credibility. This does not include theories about the Illuminati, as they are very real and only my tin foil hat protects me from their mind control rays.

In addition there will be a multiple choice test which the voter must score 50% or higher on to gain there vote. Questions will cover the positions of the candidate and his opponent on major issues in the campaign.

Questions? Comments? Snide Remarks? Flames?
Ashmoria
24-01-2005, 00:13
you should look up the reasons for the voting rights act of 1964 (united states)

we HAD a test, it was utterly misused in order to keep the wrong (black) people from voting.

there is no reason to think that it wouldnt be misused by whoever ran the test, after all, people suck.
Teranius
24-01-2005, 00:16
-snip-

I'm going to assume that wasn't a joke for a second.

Who would read all the papers fast enough to produce timely election results?
Teranius
24-01-2005, 00:17
you should look up the reasons for the voting rights act of 1964 (united states)

we HAD a test, it was utterly misused in order to keep the wrong (black) people from voting.

there is no reason to think that it wouldnt be misused by whoever ran the test, after all, people suck.

I am aware that literacy and other types of tests were used to keep minorites from voting. However, my stupidity test would not discriminate among races. If you don't understand how our government works, it doesn't matter if you're white, black, blue, pink, or purple, you don't get to vote!
Soviet Haaregrad
24-01-2005, 00:24
Then we put down the revolts with force

Civil wars are good for everyone. :fluffle:
Refused Party Program
24-01-2005, 00:26
Anyone that chooses democracy doesn't get to vote.

Oh, the irony.
MNOH
24-01-2005, 00:27
I don't think constantly unemployed people (by choice/laziness, not by hardship) who just eat up welfare should be allowed to vote.
How do you determine whether someone is unemployed due to laziness or due to hardship? Asking them certainly won't work, because a person isn't going to tell you the truth just so you can take away his right/privilege to vote. Do you just determine who's in what group arbitrarily, or maybe waste a ridiculous amount of tax dollars investigating every single unemployed person in the country to figure out whether or not he/she really wants to work or not, and allowing or disallowing them to vote accordingly? Short of such a method, which seems very wasteful, you are certain to allow a large number of "lazy" people to vote, or disenfranchise a large number of people with genuine reasons for being unemployed. Or better yet: both.
Commando2
24-01-2005, 00:28
I think too many people vote in elections. I don't think I'm the only one with this opinion, either. There are stupid people, crazy people, lazy people, productive people, and apathetic people in the United States. All of them over the age of 18, with some exceptions have the right to vote. I think that was guaranteed in the 19th amendment. Some amendment near that number, anyway.

I think we should test people a couple different ways before we confer the privilege of voting. First, I think the candidate voter should be a producer in society, not a consumer. That means the voting public will actually fund the government, not reap the rewards of laziness or stupidity. Or illness. I don't think that receiving disability payments from the government should entitle one to vote. There's insurance for that sort of thing.

Second, I don't think really stupid people should be allowed to vote. For example, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old shouldn't be trusted to make rational decisions about government.

Last, I like the idea of owning real property as a qualification for voting. That's impractical for everyone, though. Producing wealth for the economy should be enough. I'm sort of serious about this and my intentions aren't to get anyone upset, just to stir up some thinking about who is voting in our elections.


www.creationists.org

The people here believe the earth is 6000 years old, and whether you agree with them or not, you must admit they present the Young Earth Creation theory in a deep way. They don't say "It just happened!" They go out of their way to find info for their case. So they aren't stupid people at all just dedicated.
Teranius
24-01-2005, 00:32
-snip-

You are completely correct. Looking back, my one-question test would probably be a better substitute. It would probably weed out all the lazy, unemployed people who don't know how our government works anyways.
Fernhach
24-01-2005, 00:36
The people here believe the earth is 6000 years old, and whether you agree with them or not, you must admit they present the Young Earth Creation theory in a deep way. They don't say "It just happened!" They go out of their way to find info for their case. So they aren't stupid people at all just dedicated.
Fanatic, rather.
Nurcia
24-01-2005, 00:40
I'm going to assume that wasn't a joke for a second.

Who would read all the papers fast enough to produce timely election results?

I suppose the best way to handle it would be to have computers handle analyzing the papers.

And it was half-serious, meant to provoke a few thoughts and hopefully make the reader chuckle a time or two in the process.
Ashmoria
24-01-2005, 00:43
I am aware that literacy and other types of tests were used to keep minorites from voting. However, my stupidity test would not discriminate among races. If you don't understand how our government works, it doesn't matter if you're white, black, blue, pink, or purple, you don't get to vote!
DUH
thats how the literacy tests started out

people are people
THEY SUCK
it WILL be used for bad purposes. its what people DO. there is no way around it.
Walkendalia
24-01-2005, 01:03
I've got a better idea: let's get better candidates. This sounds like a very cleverly hidden "I hate the fact that Bush won" thread. That's why we're picking on religions. Rather than demand that the people be better, let's make some demands that our candidates be better. We haven't had good candidates on either side for a while.

As for the fact that we didn't allow native americans and blacks, and women vote. The founding fathers got that wrong on the first go. They ignored John Adams' view that would have let women vote for instance. But they gave us the constitution, which they allowed to be ammended. So the Republic gets the chance to get it right.
Walkendalia
24-01-2005, 01:06
Computer graded essays are hilarious. Recently a column in the UK ran about a guy who replaced every third noun with the word "Chimpanzee" on a hunch that the machine was checking the length of the word rather than the word itself. The computer gave him the highest possible score. I'll see if I can find the link.
Ashmoria
24-01-2005, 01:09
I've got a better idea: let's get better candidates. This sounds like a very cleverly hidden "I hate the fact that Bush won" thread. That's why we're picking on religions. Rather than demand that the people be better, let's make some demands that our candidates be better. We haven't had good candidates on either side for a while.

As for the fact that we didn't allow native americans and blacks, and women vote. The founding fathers got that wrong on the first go. They ignored John Adams' view that would have let women vote for instance. But they gave us the constitution, which they allowed to be ammended. So the Republic gets the chance to get it right.
what GOOD person would ever run for president? its not only brutal on the candidate, they rip his/her family to shreds too. what good person could put up with it?
Myrmidonisia
24-01-2005, 01:38
I've got a better idea: let's get better candidates. This sounds like a very cleverly hidden "I hate the fact that Bush won" thread. That's why we're picking on religions. Rather than demand that the people be better, let's make some demands that our candidates be better. We haven't had good candidates on either side for a while.


Here is a great idea. The discussion was stirred, the only real support my straw man got was from the Nazi, so I take that for what it's worth.

Now, how do you get good candidates through our political system? They have learned to sell their votes, either to corporate interests, or to those that want the government to meet all their needs. A candidate that proposes something as simple as Social Security reform, for instance, is demonized by one group and hailed by another.

Maybe another idea would be to take local officals from voting rolls in a way kind of like jury duty. Force them to serve a term. Take state and national leaders from driver's license rolls. There should surely be a way to make it undesirable to become a career politician.
Eutrusca
24-01-2005, 01:40
If you live in a society which has the opportunity to vote for the leaders, to NOT vote is simply stupid, IMHO. To forbid anyone younger than 18 the right to vote for who they want as leaders is unacceptable, since what the leadership does affects everyone.
Sel Appa
24-01-2005, 01:44
Anyone who can comfortably speak, write, and read English should be forced to vote or face fines.
Eutrusca
24-01-2005, 01:47
My reccomendation for how to restrict voting rights would work on the following basis:

In order to vote each person must include a typed five page (double spaced, 12 point, Times font) paper explaining why they feel the candidate they are voting for should hold office.

1. If the paper at any point resorts to referring to the opposing candidate as a "crazed fundamentalist nazi who will kill millions of people and eat their babies" or as a "crazed athiest communist who will raise taxes to pay for his gay marriage to *insert hated foreign leader*" or any such language the vote will automatically be thrown out.

2. Any reference to being "hot" "sexy" or similar terms as a reason for choosing this candidate will result in deletion of the vote.

3. Any statement which shows that the potential voter has utterly unrealistic expectations, about what their candidate can accomplish will lose their vote. Examples include a belief that the candidate can lower taxes, raise spending, and not run a deficit, or a belief that the candidate will be able to get the government to pay for your medical bills, send you large sums of money for no particular reason, instantly make you loved by all fellow citizens, water your lawn, walk the dog, and wash your car.

4. Anyone who sites hatred of a particular group (gays, christians, etc.) as a reason for their vote.

5. Anyone who at any point cites a conspiracy theory with credibility. This does not include theories about the Illuminati, as they are very real and only my tin foil hat protects me from their mind control rays.

In addition there will be a multiple choice test which the voter must score 50% or higher on to gain there vote. Questions will cover the positions of the candidate and his opponent on major issues in the campaign.

Questions? Comments? Snide Remarks? Flames?

You obviously don't trust the people, an elitist position. :headbang:
Eutrusca
24-01-2005, 01:49
Fanatic, rather.

Um ... so everyone with whom you disagree is a "fanatic?" :headbang:
Khvostof Island
24-01-2005, 02:08
I think its almost time for our country to have another revolution.
Commando2
24-01-2005, 04:30
This is illogical thinking. Certain people are better than others, thats a fact of life. An austistic child in a wheelchair is not equal to a fully functioning child. Thats a fact of life.

Now I see where you get your name from. That was a horrible thing to say. If someone is born into a wheelchair that doesn't make them any worse a person than a fully functioning child. God knows the person in the wheelchair is suffering and one day when we are all dead we won't have disabilities and such God will wipe the tears from the disabled persons face and heal him, just like Jesus did to disabled people. Jesus didn't look down on the disabled like you you nazi. If you keep that attitude up on the day of judgement God will see your evil attitude and keep that in mind when he determins your fate.
Tueber
24-01-2005, 04:47
Now I see where you get your name from. That was a horrible thing to say. If someone is born into a wheelchair that doesn't make them any worse a person than a fully functioning child. God knows the person in the wheelchair is suffering and one day when we are all dead we won't have disabilities and such God will wipe the tears from the disabled persons face and heal him, just like Jesus did to disabled people. Jesus didn't look down on the disabled like you you nazi. If you keep that attitude up on the day of judgement God will see your evil attitude and keep that in mind when he determins your fate.

That's like saying "1=1,000 because they are both numbers"...
People are different. The wheelchair boy is not any "worse" than a regular boy but they are NOT the same. That is a fact that simply can't be looked past.
Commando2
24-01-2005, 04:49
That's like saying "1=1,000 because they are both numbers"...
People are different. The wheelchair boy is not any "worse" than a regular boy but they are NOT the same. That is a fact that simply can't be looked past.

We are all the same in the eyes of God.
AnarchyeL
24-01-2005, 04:56
I think too many people vote in elections.
Too many?!! Have you taken a look at our vote turnouts?
I don't think I'm the only one with this opinion, either.
Probably not, but that doesn't help.
First, I think the candidate voter should be a producer in society, not a consumer. That means the voting public will actually fund the government, not reap the rewards of laziness or stupidity.
Hmmm... Interesting. So rich kids with no jobs but plenty of money could not vote... Or what about students such as myself? I am on a fully stipended fellowship with no work requirements -- I just get paid for going to class. I can't vote?

Second, I don't think really stupid people should be allowed to vote. For example, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old shouldn't be trusted to make rational decisions about government.
Nice how you snuck that pot-shot at the religious in there. I'm atheist myself... but I cannot think of a fair way to decide what "really stupid" is in order to test people for voting "privileges."

Besides, if you hadn't noticed the uneducated tend not to vote anyway... Why would we want to ruffle their feathers by banning them from something they don't want to do anyway?

Last, I like the idea of owning real property as a qualification for voting.

Okay... Why? In ages past, when the land one owned directly produced wealth, property requirements were thought to be a logical measure because it was assumed that anything that hurt the country would hurt the prosperity of the land, and whatever benefits the land benefits the country -- so landowners would be compelled to vote in everyone's interests.

But now, what benefits owners in one sector of the economy has virtually no relation to what may hurt or benefit others... and certainly only a tenuous relationship to what benefits the country as a whole. So why should there be a property requirement?
AnarchyeL
24-01-2005, 05:10
Then why weren't blacks given the right to vote, or Native Americans?
Ummm... racism and prejudice? Probably not the best examples with which to support your argument!
The Electoral Congress was created because the Founding Fathers mistrusted true mass democracy.
No, the Electoral College has more to do with the perceived need to give small states political power in the Union disproportionate to their size. (And the larger states really got screwed on this one... The small states needed the big ones far more than the big states needed them. They would have agreed to a strong central government on virtually any terms.)
I mostly agree with this. I don't think constantly unemployed people (by choice/laziness, not by hardship)
How do you tell the difference?

I believe that a single question test would be all that is required. It would look something like this:

What type of government is the United States?
[ ] Democracy
[ ] Republic

Anyone that chooses democracy doesn't get to vote. Simple.

Hmmm... Interesting. As a trained political theorist, I think anyone who doesn't respond with an essay explaining why the question presents a false dichotomy shouldn't be allowed to vote. (I guess that means you. Sorry.) Some, but not all, democracies are republican. Some, but not all, republics are democratic. They are not mutually exclusive, and the definition of the political constitution of the United States is more complex than either.
Alomogordo
24-01-2005, 05:36
I couldnt have said it better myself.
You know you're in bad company when "Hitler Youth" agrees with you.
Njorge
24-01-2005, 05:49
This is illogical thinking. Everyone votes for themselves. Everyone votes based on which party/person will benefit them most.
And as far as getting rid of people who think they are better than others...you'd be getting rid of all intelligent people. Certain people are better than others, that’s a fact of life. An austistic child in a wheelchair is not equal to a fully functioning child. Thats a fact of life.


Actually no I would disagree vote for what they think is best for ... some members of society... or the environment... Hey im going to say it but fuck you. I don’t like to ever get angry on these forums or at someone I don’t know but... if I may. Some of the greatest mathematicians of our time have been autistic (they aren’t all "retarded" as I’m sure you call "those people")

And to the earlier point of only let people vote that don’t "mooch" off society. So Soldiers who have fought in wars and lost limbs and cant work I guess F them they are just moochers also like the blacks huh?

PS. Karma is going to fuck you soon enough or maybe in long time you never know
Tueber
24-01-2005, 06:15
Hmmm... Interesting. As a trained political theorist, I think anyone who doesn't respond with an essay explaining why the question presents a false dichotomy shouldn't be allowed to vote. (I guess that means you. Sorry.) Some, but not all, democracies are republican. Some, but not all, republics are democratic. They are not mutually exclusive, and the definition of the political constitution of the United States is more complex than either.
Go find me the word "Democracy" in the U.S. Constitution. Once you have given up, visit Article 4 Sec. 4. :)
AnarchyeL
24-01-2005, 06:31
Go find me the word "Democracy" in the U.S. Constitution. Once you have given up, visit Article 4 Sec. 4. :)

Go find me the words "political party" in the U.S. Constitution. Once you've given up, perhaps you'll understand that the political constitution of the country neither begins nor ends with that document.
UpwardThrust
24-01-2005, 06:33
I think too many people vote in elections. I don't think I'm the only one with this opinion, either. There are stupid people, crazy people, lazy people, productive people, and apathetic people in the United States. All of them over the age of 18, with some exceptions have the right to vote. I think that was guaranteed in the 19th amendment. Some amendment near that number, anyway.

I think we should test people a couple different ways before we confer the privilege of voting. First, I think the candidate voter should be a producer in society, not a consumer. That means the voting public will actually fund the government, not reap the rewards of laziness or stupidity. Or illness. I don't think that receiving disability payments from the government should entitle one to vote. There's insurance for that sort of thing.

Second, I don't think really stupid people should be allowed to vote. For example, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old shouldn't be trusted to make rational decisions about government.

Last, I like the idea of owning real property as a qualification for voting. That's impractical for everyone, though. Producing wealth for the economy should be enough. I'm sort of serious about this and my intentions aren't to get anyone upset, just to stir up some thinking about who is voting in our elections.

But then it would no longer be a random poll (because that is what it is though supposed to be closer to a survey)

You remove randomness you reduce validity of a poll and reduce the accuracy of the results
DiggaDigga
24-01-2005, 06:57
This is illogical thinking. Certain people are better than others, thats a fact of life. An austistic child in a wheelchair is not equal to a fully functioning child. Thats a fact of life.


course not, the autistic child is better. Albert Einstein is thought to have been autistic



And as per the voting thing. we can't have test. They'd be biased no matter what. You cant define whats good and whats not. And think about it, if everyone was the same, or if anyone worth anything was the same, society wouldnot function. Think of all the jobs that you dont wanna do. Someone hjas to do them, so that someone not only will have to do the worst jobs for a horrible pay, but now cant vote either??? And the owning property thing, what about people who rent. They dont own anything.


Sure the US is not doing well, but thats as much a fault, if not ll, of the lower class as it is of the middle and lower. You take away voting, and then, who knows what else you'd wanna take away. And i mean, the US might not have a great political system, but thats no reason to make it worse
Karas
24-01-2005, 07:22
you cant legitimately tax the people who arent allowed to vote

so they get government services for free

so taxes on those who can vote go up

are you sure you want that?


Actualy, you can as the people in Peurto Rico, Guam, the District of Columbia and every other US territory know.

The real problem is that any test will be biased toward those who support the current administration. It woul dessentialy produce a one-party system because people who support other parties would not be allowed to vote unless they lied on the test, in which case they could be arrested for fraud.
Gnostikos
24-01-2005, 08:28
course not, the autistic child is better. Albert Einstein is thought to have been autistic
Hells yeah! Autism is one of those disorders that is only a disorder in one sense. Granted, life is much, much easier without it, but it does have it's intellectual advantages.