NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, first off id like to explain why it is I find it imperative I argue this topic. After attempting to debate this, or even question this topic during a Poly Sci Class over the last several weeks, I have not been able to keep anyone on topic, thus, not being able to debate it. This seems to be the only place I will be able to.

Alright, where to start. As we all know in 18th Century America, the only people permitted to vote were white, male, landowners. This has been criticized and attacked by person on earth time and again... but why? The white, male, landowners were, believe it or not, the educated. They were the ones that understood matters of state, finance, politics, war, trade, theology, science... the works. Why now would we even contemplate allowing people that did not understand 'freedom of speech' to vote on it's necessity? Why would we allow people who did not understand the difference between a Federalist and a Democratic-Republican vote as one? Why would we let a person with no education, understanding or concept of government decide who is fit to run it? Simple. We didn't. Is it demographically fair that white men were the only ones educated sufficiently to vote? No... but the facts were simple... they were the only ones.

We now face a similar situation, but possess no existing protection from it. If you ask the average American who the two Senators from their state are, half can tell you... that is being generous. If you ask the average American how many Justices there are on the Supreme Court, they will give you the wrong number. If you ask the average American the position of a certain political candidate on globilization, they will almost always answer inncorrectly. So why are these people permitted to vote? People in modern society are outraged by the notion that a literacy test should be required to vote, making an immidiate jump to racial prejudice. Tell me, would you allow an illiterate President to take office? Then why would you let illiterate people decide who is fit to be in office? Why do people with absolutely no understanding of politics, international affairs and domestic situations have equal say to those with complete understanding? Why is it that a crack adict has the same voice as a Harvard Law Professor? Why is it that a man that does not understand what euthanasia is get to decide on it's relevance?

This problem does not only extend to the extremely uneducated, but many others. In modern society, millions vote simply because their church or parish has endorssed a candidate. This is pathetic, as these institutions are simply sheep herders, directing masses of uneducated, ignorant voters into the polling booths. People voting one way or the other simply because of the lable 'Democrat' or 'Republican'. People voting because their Church Minister says that God supports a certain candidate. People that are so totally ignorant to what they are voting for, they could not spell the word abortion.

I for one do not want uneducated people such as these determining who leads my country. I believe that in order to vote, you must understand the issues. I believe that you must pass a standard test including information on the candidates positions and qualifications, along with standard statistics on the government. If you cannot pass this standard test, which I expect 20-30% of voters will failr, you should not be allowed to vote, plain and simple. Politicians have become sheep herders, not men of state. This needs to be changed, and eliminating the goal of such base politics will solve it.

There it is... tear er' up.

You are joking... right:confused:

Thank you for the logical, intelligent, detailed response.

Please do not post unless you actually have some sort of argument supporting what you are saying.

The answer is education, not the rollback of hard-won civil rights. Besides, if the poor and uneducated cannot vote, who will represent their interests? Without that voting power, what politician will care about their welfare? Sure, it gives ignorant people power, but that is the lesser of two evils here.

The problem is that you would have to have the standards as part of an unamendable part of the constitution in order to assure that the test would not be manipulated to ensure that those in power would only have those who agree with them voting.

I think that stricter requirements for who can run for office as part of the constitution (an unamendable part) would be wiser.

And what if we find out that we should change those unamendable part? Then, we can rewrite the constitution. But so many people would be loathe to do that, that we would have to be sure that it is necessary to do before we could change the requirements.

As long as you haven't been convicted of a felony or are under 18, you have a right to vote. Voting isn't necessarily just about intelligence. It's about people voicing out. Not only do the intelligent have good ideas but some of the allegedly stupidest people have good ideas.

By restricting people's rights to vote is throwing democracy and the the Land of the Free to the curb.

I only wish there were higher voter turn out.

Poverty is not an excuse for the ignorance I have seen. It takes an hour to gain a basic, non-spun understanding of a poltical candidates history and stances. Now it does not matter how poor you are, this information is available, and I simply refuse to believe that poverty will prevent one from learning the bare basics. Education is a problem, and it must be solved, however, this problem is not one that justifies this level of ignorance.

The uneducated intrests? How exactly do you believe that the uneducated voter knows which candidate supports his position? The uneducated voter does not understand the candidates, making them incapable of correctly voting.

[snip]There it is... tear er' up.
ok, now define Educated?

a 3.5 GPA?

and a GPA of 4.0 still won't guarentee the WISDOM that you seem to be wanting in voters.

or are you saying that only POLY-SCI majors can vote? and of them only ones that have a GPA of 3.5? and what if those that are GPA +3.5 who are still crackheads?

Groups endorsing a candidate can be taken both good and bad, Just because a Union I am apart of supports candidate X, doesn't mean that in the voting booth I will vote for candidate X. who I vote for is no one's business. NOT even my parents!

you want a change, then say a year before the elections, you have the public vote on what 5 topics matter to them.
Then you have each candidate state their posistion on those 5 topics.

at the time of the General election, you have the posistions of the candidates on those 5 topics listed on the ballot. no name, no party affiliation, just their platforms. for example.
[ ] Candidate. A (no name/party given)
Abortion: [one sentence statement]
Gay Marriage: [one sentence statement]
Iraq War: [one sentence statement]
Tax Reform: [one sentence statement]
Alternate Fuel Reserach: [one sentence statement]


[ ] Candidate B (no name/party given)
Abortion: [one sentence statement]
Gay Marriage: [one sentence statement]
Iraq War: [one sentence statement]
Tax Reform: [one sentence statement]
Alternate Fuel Reserach: [one sentence statement]


and let the votes be tallied like that. that way, the votes are for the issues and not on the person.

Thank you for the logical, intelligent, detailed response.

It was a logical, intelligent response, a bit sardonic (implying that you could not understand words of more than two syllables) but intelligent none the less. If you allowed this, we would become a nation of two halves, the haves and the have-nots, even more than we are today. If something like this was integrated, only rich white suburbanites, (like myself) would be able to vote, as inner city residents who do not have as much access to information about these canidates would be disenfranchised. Perhaps we should just have everyone take I.Q. tests, and everyone who is not a genius would be barred from the polls, in which case, you would be on the other side of your Modest Proposal

As long as you haven't been convicted of a felony or are under 18, you have a right to vote. Voting isn't necessarily just about intelligence. It's about people voicing out. Not only do the intelligent have good ideas but some of the allegedly stupidest people have good ideas.

By restricting people's rights to vote is throwing democracy and the the Land of the Free to the curb.

I only wish there were higher voter turn out.
Democracy only works when the people understand the issues. Democracy requires the people to be the rulers... if the people are so apathetic and ignorant so as to be incapable of properly voicing their opinions, they destroy the system, thus must be eliminated from it. This is not about intelligence, it is about desire. It does not take intelligence to understand the basics, the basics that many simply refuse to grasp. If you refuse to understand a politicians position on a topic, why are you permitted to vote for him?

That would be the main reason then why we (the bigger part of the western world) enjoy a representative democracy. The masses have the ability to elect a offcials whom carry out their duties without being forced by the public to abide by his promises made to his constituancy. This is a good thing seeing a situation might arise where it's probably best not to listen to the masses.

I can agree with you in the sense that binding referendums are a dangereous tool to use on an uninformed public.

However...does a better educated man also lead to better goverance? This would imply that the USA was better governed 100 years ago. I for one truelly doubt this...

So if you say that a better educated public (who are the only ones allowed to vote) leads to beter governance then can you supply us with facts in the past that says the USA was better governed with that particular voting system?

PS: Typing in the dead of night is a sure recipe for typo's...

you want a change, then say a year before the elections, you have the public vote on what 5 topics matter to them.
Then you have each candidate state their posistion on those 5 topics.

at the time of the General election, you have the posistions of the candidates on those 5 topics listed on the ballot. no name, no party affiliation, just their platforms. for example.
[ ] Candidate. A (no name/party given)
Abortion: [one sentence statement]
Gay Marriage: [one sentence statement]
Iraq War: [one sentence statement]
Tax Reform: [one sentence statement]
Alternate Fuel Reserach: [one sentence statement]


[ ] Candidate B (no name/party given)
Abortion: [one sentence statement]
Gay Marriage: [one sentence statement]
Iraq War: [one sentence statement]
Tax Reform: [one sentence statement]
Alternate Fuel Reserach: [one sentence statement]


I would say that this is a great idea, however, I would say that it would be smarter to do this in a selective poll, by the government, three months before the election. For example, in this last election, one could argue that it was decided one month beforehand, after the Mark Foley scandal.

Americans are educated the best they ever have been, thanks to the GI bill

I would say that this is a great idea, however, I would say that it would be smarter to do this in a selective poll, by the government, three months before the election. For example, in this last election, one could argue that it was decided one month beforehand, after the Mark Foley scandal.

when the Repulicans were in power? the poll questions would then be tailored to make them look good.

no, voted upon by the general public also shows the candidates what the people think are important and not what they think is important.

Poverty is not an excuse for the ignorance I have seen. It takes an hour to gain a basic, non-spun understanding of a poltical candidates history and stances. Now it does not matter how poor you are, this information is available, and I simply refuse to believe that poverty will prevent one from learning the bare basics. Education is a problem, and it must be solved, however, this problem is not one that justifies this level of ignorance.

The uneducated intrests? How exactly do you believe that the uneducated voter knows which candidate supports his position? The uneducated voter does not understand the candidates, making them incapable of correctly voting.

Please explain the correct way to vote.

when the Repulicans were in power? the poll questions would then be tailored to make them look good.

no, voted upon by the general public also shows the candidates what the people think are important and not what they think is important.

There is no Republican plot to control the government. Do you think that they would have let 11/7 happen if there was? Besides, who would you proposed to do it, a private company, which is way more corrupt that the US government

I love how you guys go from 'Test Requiring Understanding of the Issues' to 'Require Genius IQ'.

I did not say only the educated could vote, I said only those that understand what they are voting for should be able to vote. A simple test with questions any basicly educated voter could answer. For example.

Bush's Position on Immigration.
A. Strict Closed-Border Policy.
B. Visitation-Worker Permit Program.
C. Complete Immigration, no limits.

Now as simple as that may seem, thousands will get it wrong. Now why should a person that cannot answer that question be able to vote because of that question?

I want to make something clear. I am not indicating that only the elite would be allowed to vote... 3.5 GPA's and 'Genius' are not the voter base in what I propose. I am simply saying, should there not be a required understanding of the system in order to run the system?

If you cannot recognize satire, then you have a serious problem

Democracy only works when the people understand the issues. Democracy requires the people to be the rulers... if the people are so apathetic and ignorant so as to be incapable of properly voicing their opinions, they destroy the system, thus must be eliminated from it. This is not about intelligence, it is about desire. It does not take intelligence to understand the basics, the basics that many simply refuse to grasp. If you refuse to understand a politicians position on a topic, why are you permitted to vote for him?

I personally feel that there is more than just intelligence needed for voting. I think you need to have a certain degree of common sense. Just because one may be book smart doesn't necessarily mean they have common sense.

Also, what you are advocating is the demise of Democracy as we know it. Throwing away the back breaking, head knocking that our founders came and created a Great Nation. You're advocating against People's civil rights and the fact that Everybody is created Equal and so forth.

That was not satire, I am sorry, that was not even remotely close to anything resembling ironic. Your comments have thus far been completely random, backed by no arguments, simply one line insults or positions. I am sorry, but if you are not capable of debating this, please, stop posting.

I am simply saying, should there not be a required understanding of the system in order to run the system?

I can agree with you that people should at least know what the programs are of the possible candidates, though I fail to see why a knowledge of the govermental system is required. Facts such as the size of the supreme court of justice is something I find important for your general knowledge but it doesn't have anything to do with policies of the candidates.

That was not satire, I am sorry, that was not even remotely close to anything resembling ironic. Your comments have thus far been completely random, backed by no arguments, simply one line insults or positions. I am sorry, but if you are not capable of debating this, please, stop posting.

If you truly desired people to become educated, rather than leaving a few elite in the position of voting, you would encourage someone who disagreed with you, or as you put it is "not capable of debating this", to continue posting, and you would explain your position to them, and give logical, ethical and moral reasons why you stand where you do

By doing what your advocating we do would also throw down the drain the thoughts of having a "Free and Open Election" It would be a "Restricted Election" oh don't forget to bring your #2 pencils to the polls. :rolleyes:

Kroando, I understand your point. However, this would be much too abusable. I actually agree with you on some key points, like the vote-herders, but unfortunately, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

The main problem I see with this is: Who decides who gets to vote or not? Those in power at the time of the implementation of this policy would undoubtedly invalidate the opposition's voting rights and artificially elongate their stay in power. This sounds like a sort of intellectual oligarchy. And what about those who see some types of humans unfit to vote? Let's say some ultra-conservative gets into power somehow and amends to say that homosexuals have a mental disorder (as it was generally believed up until the late 70s) and therefore are intellectually unfit to vote? What if a nazi came to power and performed "studies" like the ones in nazi germany, "proving" jews to be inferior and therefore unfit to vote? In fact, if you wanted to gradually get to a dictatorship, this would be one of the ways to do it within a democracy.

After all, military coups are so 20th century these days...

@King. Democracy will fail if those with no understanding of Democracy cannot participate? Democracy was built by people that understood what they were voting for. What they were fighting for.

The founders? The founders created a much more extreme version of what I am advocating. The founders created a system in which only wealthy, white, land owning males could vote. What I am proposing is the epitome of democracy, democracy that is not covered and disgraced in uneducated rabble.

Created Equal? Are you going to tell me that God created a mentally retarded quadriplegic equally to Albert Einstein. People were not created equally... look around. There are inequalities everywhere. The mentally superior and the mentally inferior. The physically superior and the mentally inferior.

@Rokugan-sho. The points on Supreme Court Numbers and other such information was more to make a point on the level of education rather than to suggest incorporating it on any test. I apologize if it was confusing.

[quoteIf you truly desired people to become educated, rather than leaving a few elite in the position of voting, you would encourage someone who disagreed with you, or as you put it is "not capable of debating this", to continue posting, and you would explain your position to them, and give logical, ethical and moral reasons why you stand where you do[/quote]
This is not where I am trying to apply what I am arguing here. I am simply arguing it. I have stated my opinion in a purely logical manner in the first post.

Although I do not agree with Kroando, I find it odd that people think that his view is absurd.

To clarify it, let me provide you with a hypothetical situation:

A man comes out of a building where he had the possibility to vote. A camera crew is nearby and decides to interview him. Asking him for whom he voted for and more importantly why he voted for that particular candidate he anwsers: "Because he looks kinda nice to me and well...you gotta vote for somebody"

In such cases I can't help but feel that the right to vote is rather wasted. Ill admitt most people do have valid reasons to vote, but many of them fail to properly give the arguments for their choice and that's just as bad.

Kroando, I understand your point. However, this would be much too abusable. I actually agree with you on some key points, like the vote-herders, but unfortunately, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

The main problem I see with this is: Who decides who gets to vote or not? Those in power at the time of the implementation of this policy would undoubtedly invalidate the opposition's voting rights and artificially elongate their stay in power. This sounds like a sort of intellectual oligarchy. And what about those who see some types of humans unfit to vote? Let's say some ultra-conservative gets into power somehow and amends to say that homosexuals have a mental disorder (as it was generally believed up until the late 70s) and therefore are intellectually unfit to vote? What if a nazi came to power and performed "studies" like the ones in nazi germany, "proving" jews to be inferior and therefore unfit to vote? In fact, if you wanted to gradually get to a dictatorship, this would be one of the ways to do it within a democracy.

After all, military coups are so 20th century these days...
The beauty of the Federal Government lies in the Independent Executive Agencies. The reigning party is not as all-powerful as we believe, there is a non-political faction, that is quite large running the National Government. It is possible to design a test such as the one I propose, one that would not throw our nation into a civil war-esque enviroment of constant political war.

Who decides who gets to vote or not? Those in power at the time of the implementation of this policy would undoubtedly invalidate the opposition's voting rights and artificially elongate their stay in power. This sounds like a sort of intellectual oligarchy. And what about those who see some types of humans unfit to vote? Let's say some ultra-conservative gets into power somehow and amends to say that homosexuals have a mental disorder (as it was generally believed up until the late 70s) and therefore are intellectually unfit to vote? What if a nazi came to power and performed "studies" like the ones in nazi germany, "proving" jews to be inferior and therefore unfit to vote? In fact, if you wanted to gradually get to a dictatorship, this would be one of the ways to do it within a democracy.

I find that to be little more than the slippery-slope fallacy argument. You automatically assume that restricting the voting ability to those who actually know what's going on = Hitlerite dictatorship. By the logic I could say that recognizing "gay rights" (which we will not get involved into) would lead down the slippery slope of rights for pedophiles and other perverts. Do I believe that? No, and you shouldn't believe in the slippery slope either.

The key to an election and people voicing out their opinions in a fully functioning democracy is based on whether or not they actually know what's going on. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. The so-called "stupid people" could say, be lied to by a neo-Bolshevik politician into voting for him with false promises of equality and liberation from the capitalist system, but would it happen? No! It would become a new Sovietist dictatorship with the politican in power because of stupid people, and appear legitimate! Does that sound like a good idea to you?

Point is...democracy would fail internally because of stupid people, not without them.

Quite mature of you Kroado, the good old, cover the ears and scream "I'M NOT LIIIISSSTEEEEENNNNINGGGGG! I CAAANNNN'T HEEEEAAAARRRRRRRR YOOOOOOUUUUUUU!" routine.

Quite mature of you Kroado, the good old, cover the ears and scream "I'M NOT LIIIISSSTEEEEENNNNINGGGGG! I CAAANNNN'T HEEEEAAAARRRRRRRR YOOOOOOUUUUUUU!" routine.
Seriously, if you're not going to argue, debate or do anyhting besides throw out annoying lines not in any way beneficial to the thread, please, stop posting. I dont want to have to call a mod, but if you are going to keep these one line jibberish posts... stop, or actually make an argument.

@Rokugan-sho. The points on Supreme Court Numbers and other such information was more to make a point on the level of education rather than to suggest incorporating it on any test. I apologize if it was confusing.


No problem, I could guess that wasn't your intent, but isn't there a better solution to this issue and that is to inform the public as good as possible through unbiased media? But then again...why watch two people debate about an unpopular war when you can watch such high quality programs such as America's Next Top Model or Big Brother. I fear it is the price you must pay for freedom...

It comes down to this: Is voting a right or a privilege?

I already did make an arguement, you just chose not to adress it, it went a little like this:

If you truly desired people to become educated, rather than leaving a few elite in the position of voting, you would encourage someone who disagreed with you, or as you put it is "not capable of debating this", to continue posting, and you would explain your position to them, and give logical, ethical and moral reasons why you stand where you do

Nope, I don't think you should be having limited Freedoms.

I know you logically have a good point in your OP but I really don't think limiting people's rights is the right thing to do.

A few points:
Firstly, the original Platonic model of democracy was restricted to educated males, not granted to the entire populace.
This is because the model was built on the principle that voting members had to be both educated and participatory, to avoid uncontrolled self-interest (or outright chaos).

Secondly, democracy does not mean blindly following the will of a majority irrespective of the relative morality of the majority opinion. That's just mob-rule. The role of any democratically-elected government is, and must be, to provide for ALL of its citizens.

Thirdly, any truly democratic government must be genuinely open to accountability for the decisions it makes on behalf of its citizens. Remember that the sole purpose of any governing body is to carry out the collective will of the people, and is the servant, not the master, of those people.

Fourthly, an attack on the person occupying the office of Leader is NOT the same as an attack on the office itself.

And finally, an educated and involved public is only possible with a free and open media (Fox anyone?).

Bums, ugh. I come from a kleptocracy, and I've been around long enough to know that if something can be taken advantage of, it will be taken advantage of. I'm not saying this would instantly happen, or even that it would necessarily happen, but just as easily it could happen, easier in fact. There is never a shortage of people who want to be dictators. Give them a hole as big as this and I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being a single-vote "democracy".

Kroando: I'm not sure I understood your response entirely, but here's the thing. Democracy is composed of two words. Demos, people, and kratos, power. People, the population, il popolo, embarks everybody. Within everybody, there will always be stupid people. In fact, it's most probable that the majority will be stupid. if you take away their voting rights, it's no longer a "demo"cracy, because the whole of the people aren't involved. Yes, turnout is never 100%, but at least it could be. Under your kroandocracy, you'd get maybe 20% on a good year. It's oligarchy for intellectuals rather than the wealthy.

Then again, it seems to me like what you want isn't a democracy, but a rule of the non-moronic general public. I suppose that is a fair thing to want, but it will never get passed, simply because the same non-morons you wish to confer full responsibility of power to will be just as opposed to this as the morons.

A few points:
Firstly, the original Platonic model of democracy was restricted to educated (land-owning) males, not granted to the entire populace.
This is because the model was built on the principle that voting members had to be both educated and participatory, to avoid uncontrolled self-interest (or outright chaos).

Secondly, democracy does not mean blindly following the will of a majority irrespective of the relative morality of the majority opinion. That's just mob-rule. The role of any democratically-elected government is, and must be, to provide for ALL of its citizens.

Thirdly, any truly democratic government must be genuinely open to accountability for the decisions it makes on behalf of its citizens. Remember that the sole purpose of any governing body is to carry out the collective will of the people, and is the servant, not the master, of those people.

Fourthly, an attack on the person occupying the office of Leader is NOT the same as an attack on the office itself.

And finally, an educated and involved public is only possible with a free and open media (Fox anyone?).

@Rokugan-sho. Ultimately it's up to the people. We can always try to educate them on the issues, but if they dont want to take the time to understand... they will not.

@King Bodacious. Thats where the debate ends I suppose. I believe that you must care in order to maintain your right to vote. You believe that regardless, it is yours. I will just throw out one hypothetical situation. You are in a nation of three people. You, and two completely retarded drug adicts. You sit together in this democracy and are discussing on what type of crops to grow for survival. You say corn, as it is nutritious. They say pot, for they can get high. You are obviously right... but there are two of them, so they out-vote you. All three starve. Is that your ideal of democracy?

@Buristan. That is not an argument. An argument requires counter points to those I provided. It refutes what I have argued. That post does none of those, it only mildly attacks my conviction to my original post. Where in that quote do you see an answer to anything I have posted? Do you see what Rok and King are doing? That is much closer...

@Hispanola. You are quoting Greek words... Greek Democracy did not involve the entire populus voting. By your logic, Greek Democracy was not Democracy.

My point here is not to argue the pheasibility or likelihood that this could happen... this is far more idealistic.

@Buristan. That is not an argument. An argument requires counter points to those I provided. It refutes what I have argued. That post does none of those, it only mildly attacks my conviction to my original post. Where in that quote do you see an answer to anything I have posted? Do you see what Rok and King are doing? That is much closer...

it was a response to your calls for me to leave the thread because I was "not capable"

And you have yet to prove you are capable... you continue to post one line statements without any argument. You have argued that you are capable of making a logical argument... yet you have not made one. Why are you posting? Are you attempting to debate? If so, make an argument. If not, please leave. It's really simple... I dont care about your capability of arguing in this thread. The point of this thread is not to argue about your debating ability. It is about Voting Rights.

This just doesn´t work. Any such test for voter qualificationwould obviously have to be impermeable to partisan influences, that is to say an unbiased, which would not measure factors which influence the voter unfairly against any candidate. At the same time, for the test to be legitimate, the test which must ask all "relevant" questions: questions that measure who is qualified to vote. But proponents of this system would argue that the purpose of the test is to make sure that voters are making decisions based on this same relevant information. But if the relevant information would lead them to choose a specific candidate or ideology, the test is inherently unbiased! That means that the test can either be:

unbiased with irrelevant questions
or
biased with relevant questions

Take for example the following scenario.

The current incumbent candidate in office is rounding up all members of group "x" and killing them. Therefore, an example of a relevant question for a member of group x would be "Which candidate is rounding up members of group x and killing them?". However, because the information is relevant (the definition of relevant would mean that it leads the voter to a choice) it leads the voter away from the current office holder and is therefore biased. If it was placed on a test as so...

"Which candidate is rounding up members of group x and killing them"
A: incumbant
B: other

...then the test would be biased, although it would ask a relevant question.
If we wanted to give an unbiased test (one in which the information would not lead a voter to a specific candidate) then the test must ask an irrelevant question (a question which would not test information leading to one candidate or the other).

If such an unbiased test was formed as so...
"Which candidate has a dog named Scruffy?"
A:incumbant
B:other

...it would have to ask irrelevant information, as to not test for a type of knowledge that would lead the voter to a specific candidate and thus be biased.

The whole purpose of any such test is to test for a "unqualified" voter. What is an unqualified voter? A voter which votes for an bad candidate. What is a bad candidate? That is the opinion of whoever creates the test. Thus, testing for the kind of information that would make a good voter would not only possibly, but inherently lead to the opinion of the test-maker unless the questions were irrelevant.

It´s not the onlfy flaw in this argument, although it is a fundamental one. The system may not necessarily be abused intentionally, but it will necessarily be biased.

Point being: if the system administers a biased test and thus admits a biased portion of the population, democracy is destroyed at the very moment the test comes into effect. If the system administers an unbiased test, then it isn´t testing for voter aptitude and there was no point of administering the test in the first place.

Letting idiots vote, in my mind, is no different than letting only the 'intelligent' and 'educated' vote. You'll still end up with political corruption, and a system that barely manages to continue being called democracy.

Either that, or you get a so called enlightened dictatorship. Or an oligarchy of the elite.

No thanks.

awww, nothing quite as cute as a college freshman in a poly sci class that thinks he has valuable insight on the american political system

It comes down to this: Is voting a right or a privilege?

It's a privilege. If it were a right then women, city laborers, and free blacks would've had the right to vote from the start. Furthermore, if it were a right, then children would be able to vote as well. As it is, children have the same rights as everyone else (Freedom of Religion, Trial by Jury, etc) but they are not extended the privilege of voting.

I'm all for what the OP basically supports. If I could implement it, the people who could vote would, at the least, have to know how the Federal government works in its completeness (the States have the right to do it differently, as permitted by the 10th), in which case a test with its outline defined in an amendment would work. Learning how the Federal government works is as easy as buying a copy of the Constitution and memorizing. Ideally, they should also learn the reasoning behind it by reading the Federalist Papers, Locke's Treatise on Government, Paine's The Rights of Man, the Magna Carta, and the English Bills of Rights, the latter is that the Founding Fathers' biggest complaint is that they were being denied their proper rights as Englishmen (as funny as that sounds).

To go possibly one step further (debatable on this), in order to take the test, the person must be able to present proof of citizenship (birth certificate, or whatever immigrants get when they become citizens), proof that they have a source of income (anything will do), and proof of residence (could be anything from a mansion to an three room apartment, doesn't matter). That way, it proves that the person cares enough about himself to have a job and a home.

EDIT: Woohoo! one-hundredth post, even though I've been NSing for nearly two years! *parties*

It's a privilege. If it were a right then women, city laborers, and free blacks would've had the right to vote from the start. Furthermore, if it were a right, then children would be able to vote as well. As it is, children have the same rights as everyone else (Freedom of Religion, Trial by Jury, etc) but they are not extended the privilege of voting.


That is, in fact, not true at all. You're wrong on both counts, first the idea that children are afforded equal rights, and second on the idea that voting is not a right:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens in the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Learning how the Federal government works is as easy as buying a copy of the Constitution and memorizing.

Obviously not based on your instistance that voting is not a right, despite TWO constitutional amendments that state quite clearly that it is.

awww, nothing quite as cute as a college freshman in a poly sci class that thinks he has valuable insight on the american political system

I love that 'I've got it all figured out' stage that is quickly followed by 'I'm totally disillusioned with the fact that my future holds for me a job at McDonalds' that leads to, 'I might as well get as much action as I can while I'm here'.

Hi there. I'm a 16 year old caucasian male, with a 3.6 GPA in highschool. By no means am I the most intelligent person in the world, but neither am I an ignorant 'tard. What I know about the American political scene, I learn from the snippets i catch off of MSN, it being my homepage. What I know about how our government works I picked up in my American Government class. In no way, shape, or form do I know exactly what's going on in our country. But I do know enough to be able to formulate my own opinions on what's happening.

Kroando, I don't think you give the so-called "uneducated" people enough credit. Everyone has at least a vague idea of what's going on in the country, believe it or not, and everyone has their own opinion. Who's to say that you, a political science student, who knows the Constitution in and out, and can give you the names of every Senator from every state AND list their stances on obscure topics (i.e., Pig Molestation in Southern California), knows more about what's best for the country than Joe Shmoe, who knows only the name of the President and realizes we're at war with Iraq? (I know that was a run-on, but bear with me).

Mr. Shmoe has an opinion already formed about that war; let's say he's for it, hands down, root-em-up. He goes to the polls with only this shred of knowledge, and votes for the candidate that he thinks best represents his interests for Iraq. Are you going to deny him his right only because he knows about one topic? Will he not be allowed to vote because he doesn't know that, along with voting for the war, he's allowing many other actions to take effect? Hell, I doubt YOU even realize how many bills are tacked on with the alleged "high priority" issues. Does this in turn make YOU one of the uneducated?

My point is that everyone knows, at the very least, one thing about what's going on in the government, no matter what it may be. That in turn grants them the right to express their opinion on said matter in the way our founders saw most fit: The Election Process.

To go possibly one step further (debatable on this), in order to take the test, the person must be able to present proof of citizenship (birth certificate, or whatever immigrants get when they become citizens), proof that they have a source of income (anything will do), and proof of residence (could be anything from a mansion to an three room apartment, doesn't matter). That way, it proves that the person cares enough about himself to have a job and a home.

"Debatable" is an understatement, to say the least. These suggestions are absolutely absurd. My grandmother raised 12 kids and worked tirelessly as a volunteer at her church all her life, but she apparently didn't "care enough about herself" for you to allow her to vote. I'm currently between full-time jobs; I quit my last full-time job because my employer told me I had no choice but to put up with one of our clients sexually harassing me. Clearly, my unwillingness to let a creepy guy twice my age try to fondle my ass and ask me how much I liked sucking on penises every time he saw me means that I don't deserve to vote, either. An acquaintance of mine had to live out of his car for several months after losing his job due to downsizing. On the other hand, another acquaintance of mine comes from a very wealthy family who bought him a house upon his graduation from college. Obviously, the latter "cares about himself" more, and is thus more deserving of basic rights, through some magical process known only to you.

(And, of course, you've got to love the idea that only the employed get to vote on matters which will affect employment. That's just funny. While we're at it, why not decide that only people with a clean bill of health can vote on anything to do with health care? Or we could let only men and infertile women decide our country's position on abortion rights! Brilliant!)

I quit my last full-time job because my employer told me I had no choice but to put up with one of our clients sexually harassing me. Clearly, my unwillingness to let a creepy guy twice my age try to fondle my ass and ask me how much I liked sucking on penises every time he saw me means that I don't deserve to vote, either.

Well.. you could have gotten a pretty nice income from suing your [censored] boss for this.

Well.. you could have gotten a pretty nice income from suing your [censored] boss for this.

Eh, it wasn't really worth the effort. It was a crappy job anyway, so I was really fairly happy to quit. :) (And, to my boss's slight credit, I found out later that he did actually try in his own inadequate way to get Mr. Creepy to leave me alone - he apparently tried several times to pitch a different, male employee to Mr. Creepy as a better candidate to handle his business. Sadly, Mr. Creepy seemed to be less concerned with the handling of his business and more concerned with, well, the "handling" of his business. So to speak.)

First of all, I am a fourth year political science major at Villanova University, and was just accepted to Law School at the same institution. So Arthais, before you start trying to act all high and mighty, maybe actually write some sort of educated response? Regardless, you all are seriously not taking the points as I write them.

From what I am seeing most people are saying, 'No, this is not right. It is not right because it cannot be done.' I am not arguing it's possibility. I am not saying whether or not an unbaised test can be made. My point is simply, if one could be made, should it? If we could fairly create a test irradicating uneducated voters, should we? If I created a post around the topic, 'Should racism be irradicated?', you all would not say, 'No. It cannot be done so racism should stay.' Please respond to my points, try not to recreate them and then respond to those. The topic is strictly ideological.

Voting is a right? Then why is it that convicted felons, in many states have lost the right?

Let me ask you. Should mentally retarded people, those incapable of any concrete thought, be allowed to vote? People that cannot grasp the idea of what voting is, what rights are, what politicians do... these people should be able to rule the country? No. It is a ridiculous to suggest that a mentally incapable person should be permitted to cast a vote for something he or she does not understand. People that have no idea what they are doing, should they be allowed to walk into the both and say, 'Bush', not understanding what it is they are voting for?

As to your grandmother, if she would go to the poll and randomly pick a candidate without knowing who or what she was voting for then yes, I believe that right should be taken. I believe that you must understand politics to partake in them. Do you think it is right that a voter can walk into a booth and say, "I am voting for G. W. Bush because he supports gay marriage." You think that is democracy? You think that is logical? Democracy requires an educated effort on the behalf of the ruling party... the people. If the people are so apathetic so as to not understand the slightest detail then yes, they should forfeit their right.

Again, you all are stating that I am for allowing only voters that vote a certain way to partake. If two people understand the argument on gay rights, and vote different ways, then by all means, allow both to vote. If two people understand the Iraq War and vote different ways, then by all means, allow both to vote. I do not care if a voter 'votes the wrong way', that is completely irrelevant to the point. I only think that a voter should know what it is he/she is voting for.

The answer is education, not the rollback of hard-won civil rights. Besides, if the poor and uneducated cannot vote, who will represent their interests? Without that voting power, what politician will care about their welfare? Sure, it gives ignorant people power, but that is the lesser of two evils here.

The question is really "How can a politician exploit the poor and ignorant for his own purposes", isn't it?

the answer is not having a 2 paerty system.

First of all, I am a fourth year political science major at Villanova University, and was just accepted to Law School at the same institution. So Arthais, before you start trying to act all high and mighty, maybe actually write some sort of educated response? Regardless, you all are seriously not taking the points as I write them.

From what I am seeing most people are saying, 'No, this is not right. It is not right because it cannot be done.' I am not arguing it's possibility. I am not saying whether or not an unbaised test can be made. My point is simply, if one could be made, should it? If we could fairly create a test irradicating uneducated voters, should we? If I created a post around the topic, 'Should racism be irradicated?', you all would not say, 'No. It cannot be done so racism should stay.' Please respond to my points, try not to recreate them and then respond to those. The topic is strictly ideological.

Voting is a right? Then why is it that convicted felons, in many states have lost the right?

Let me ask you. Should mentally retarded people, those incapable of any concrete thought, be allowed to vote? People that cannot grasp the idea of what voting is, what rights are, what politicians do... these people should be able to rule the country? No. It is a ridiculous to suggest that a mentally incapable person should be permitted to cast a vote for something he or she does not understand. People that have no idea what they are doing, should they be allowed to walk into the both and say, 'Bush', not understanding what it is they are voting for?

As to your grandmother, if she would go to the poll and randomly pick a candidate without knowing who or what she was voting for then yes, I believe that right should be taken. I believe that you must understand politics to partake in them. Do you think it is right that a voter can walk into a booth and say, "I am voting for G. W. Bush because he supports gay marriage." You think that is democracy? You think that is logical? Democracy requires an educated effort on the behalf of the ruling party... the people. If the people are so apathetic so as to not understand the slightest detail then yes, they should forfeit their right.

Again, you all are stating that I am for allowing only voters that vote a certain way to partake. If two people understand the argument on gay rights, and vote different ways, then by all means, allow both to vote. If two people understand the Iraq War and vote different ways, then by all means, allow both to vote. I do not care if a voter 'votes the wrong way', that is completely irrelevant to the point. I only think that a voter should know what it is he/she is voting for.
You are thinking about this in the right way. Looking at the whole problem in a practical manner, I don't think a test is going to work. Maybe some abstract test that can never be developed and used in practice, but that's about all.

A better test, if you will, is by measuring the amount that one participates in the government already. If one is a net taxpayer, then he has standing to determine how his money should be spent. If one is a net taxtaker, then maybe he has some standing, but not as much as the one that has been coerced into serving his purpose.

I would propose that everyone be given a vote. Those that are net taxpayers should be given extra votes in proportion with the amount of taxes that they pay. After all, the largest 'contributors' to the government should have the most influence over its use of their 'contributions'.

The irradication of the two party system will not irradicate that issue. As long as there are men (or women for that matter) of ambition with a desire for power, there will be politicians attempting to take hold of the ignorant to use them to their advantage. The solution is taking away the voting rights of the ignorant voter, making them worthless to the ambitious politician. If a politician was forced to campaign for the well educated vote... outcomes would be much different.

This is not a 'Republican' nor 'Democratic' issue. I know some very stupid people in both parties, as I know very intelligent people in both.

As a Political Science major, you should be ashamed, for you've missed the point of the US Constitution. It extends rights to people, it does not take them away, which is what you are proposing. What a horrible thought, that someday there should be an amendment stating that "the right to vote shall be contingent upon passing an examination so devised as to test the applicant's knowledge of current events in the United States." Even more horrible would be one that says your right to vote is contingent upon whether your tax return indicates that you gave the government money over the course of the last year or accepted aid from the government. Shame.

First of all, I am a fourth year political science major at Villanova University, and was just accepted to Law School at the same institution. So Arthais, before you start trying to act all high and mighty, maybe actually write some sort of educated response? Regardless, you all are seriously not taking the points as I write them..

oh a SENIOR, well that changes everything, I didn't recongize I was in the presence of such intellectual greatness.

OK, you want an educated response? Sure junior, here it goes. The principle of represnetative democracy is that the makeup of the government reflects the view of the people. What are suggesting is only counting particular viewpoints, IE the political ones. In other words, you have denied my ability to exercise my right to vote on preferences outside of the political.

If, for instance, the majority of american do not want a woman to president, regardless of her political opinions, than hilary clinton will not be president, and that is a legitimate expression of the will of the people. You in doing so substitute your own judgement as to what is important for the rest of the people. And despite what your mommy might have always told you, you're not that special. You're not a delicate wonderful little flower. You don't get to tell me, or 300 million other americans what we should consider important in our political candidates.

If I want to vote for someone because I like his haircut, then my vote weighs into reflecting the will of the people, and the will of at least one person likes that politician because of his haircut. To put forth such a test is as I said to substitute your view of what is important in a candidate over what the other americans think is important. And you don't have the right to tell me what is important in a candidate to me.

Sorry, you're just not that special.

The answer is education, not the rollback of hard-won civil rights. Besides, if the poor and uneducated cannot vote, who will represent their interests?
Which raises the question... Do their interests matter?

How is a poly sci major and a future law student so ungodly ignorant of the constitution?



Voting is a right? Then why is it that convicted felons, in many states have lost the right?

It isn't a right?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.




Do you think it is right that a voter can walk into a booth and say, "I am voting for G. W. Bush because he supports gay marriage." You think that is democracy? You think that is logical?

Democracy requires one to vote for whom they please, not their their choice is wise, or even right.

Democracy requires an educated effort on the behalf of the ruling party... the people.

No, no it doesn't. It only requires a vote.

Let me ask you. Should mentally retarded people, those incapable of any concrete thought, be allowed to vote? People that cannot grasp the idea of what voting is, what rights are, what politicians do... these people should be able to rule the country? No. It is a ridiculous to suggest that a mentally incapable person should be permitted to cast a vote for something he or she does not understand. People that have no idea what they are doing, should they be allowed to walk into the both and say, 'Bush', not understanding what it is they are voting for?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Well, that kind of buggers your argument doesn't it?

OK, you want an educated response? Sure junior, here it goes. The principle of represnetative democracy is that the makeup of the government reflects the view of the people.
Well, you got that wrong right at the start. The principle of representative democracy is that the makeup of the government reflects the view of a plurality of the people. Not all of them - just the largest voting block.
If, for instance, the majority of american do not want a woman to president, regardless of her political opinions, than hilary clinton will not be president, and that is a legitimate expression of the will of the people. You in doing so substitute your own judgement as to what is important for the rest of the people.
The constitution already does that by placing limits on the power of government.

Which raises the question... Do their interests matter?

The question should not even be raised. The interests of all citizens matter, unless you wish to strip those below a certain level economically of their citizenship. Some may think that's a fine idea. I don't.

Well, you got that wrong right at the start. The principle of representative democracy is that the makeup of the government reflects the view of a plurality of the people. Not all of them - just the largest voting block.

Not at all. In 2006 elections the largest voting block was democrats. Yet there are still 200 republicans in the house. Representative democracy representes the will of the people, in a rought configuration with their majority. If it represented only the plurality there would be no republicans in congress.

The constitution already does that by placing limits on the power of government.

Which may, at any time, be changed, by the votes of the state legislators elected...wait for it...by the people. If the people wanted the power of the government to change via an amendment to the constitution, they would elect representatives that would bring this about.

They don't, so they haven't. Doesn't mean they can't.

Arthais, thank you. Thank you for showing me why I went to college. I truly do not want to end up some middle-aged, uneducated paper-pusher with a severe superiority complex, yet the intellect of a nine year old. You failed to respond to the post, you mainly just ranted on about how you are superior, I inferior and uneducated. From what I can guess, you were rejected from every Tier I & II school you applied to, and ended up with a degree from a third rate community college. I most likely am far more educated than you, and yes, intellectually superior. Now I have not until now said this, you are the one who has brought up the point, so do not continue to ramble on about my 'cockiness'. Not once have I claimed to be 'special', it is quite sad to see such immaturity out of older people. I am merely responding to the comments of a man hitting his mid-life crisis, quickly realizing he has failed. Again, I am assuming you are not some high school freshman that is living under the specter that age yields intelligence, thus is posing as a much older person. If this is the case, as it I suspect it may be, I suggest you stop posting. You seem far to immature to be over the age of fifteen, but then again...

As to your 'argument'. It avoided all points, and was completely irrelevant to the argument.

@Farnhamia. The Constitution grants the specifics of voting qualifications to the states. The only reason there were any adjustments was due to an abuse of the system by Southern States. I think it is far more horrible that you support the tyranny of the uneducated mob... allowing people that simply do not understand the issues to be the judges of them.

I love that 'I've got it all figured out' stage that is quickly followed by 'I'm totally disillusioned with the fact that my future holds for me a job at McDonalds' that leads to, 'I might as well get as much action as I can while I'm here'.

This is why people should go into Fine Arts. You can cut to the action right away.

As for the OP, I have this:

In a democracy, the state serves the people. Not the other way around. Your argument rests on the assumption that voting is a service that the people render to the state. Therefore it would be logical to ensure that those rendering such a service would be capable of doing so.

But that's not how it is. Voting is the state rendering a service to the people. It is the method of accountability that we use to ensure that the powerful must listen to the people, regardless of the person's intellect, aptitude, or knowledge.

But even leaving simple political philosophy aside, there are many technical problems with your idea.

Who administers the test? How are these people held accountable?
Is the test given in the voting station right before the voter votes? Is it before? If it before, when?
What language is it in? English? What if a citizen is unable to speak English at a level where they can intelligently write about politics? Can they do it in another language?
Who makes the test? Who checks it? Who makes sure that this power is not abused?
Do you use the same test all over the country? What about local issues?

To be honest, it seems to create more problems and bureaucracy than it solves.

Also, people who are educated and intelligent about politics can usually use that knowledge to influence politics withoput the mechanism of voting. Why would you remove the only influence that the rest of the population has?

Arthais, thank you. Thank you for showing me why I went to college. I truly do not want to end up some middle-aged, uneducated paper-pusher with a severe superiority complex, yet the intellect of a nine year old. You failed to respond to the post, you mainly just ranted on about how you are superior, I inferior and uneducated. From what I can guess, you were rejected from every Tier I & II school you applied to, and ended up with a degree from a third rate community college. I most likely am far more educated than you, and yes, intellectually superior. Now I have not until now said this, you are the one who has brought up the point, so do not continue to ramble on about my 'cockiness'. Not once have I claimed to be 'special', it is quite sad to see such immaturity out of older people. I am merely responding to the comments of a man hitting his mid-life crisis, quickly realizing he has failed. Again, I am assuming you are not some high school freshman that is living under the specter that age yields intelligence, thus is posing as a much older person. If this is the case, as it I suspect it may be, I suggest you stop posting. You seem far to immature to be over the age of fifteen, but then again...


I'm gonna say this, only cause this entire thing is amusing, coming from someone who's proud as hell that he got into a middle of the road lawschool in the middle of fucking nowhere PA. And I don't do this for pride, or bragging rights, I do it only because you had to go there. So I have 6 words and a number for ya buddy.

I'm 29, and I went to Yale.

So suck my cock bitch, and realize that you don't have the right to dictate to the american people what they need to know, or should need to know, or what they should consider important to them when they head to the polls.

*snip*
@Farnhamia. The Constitution grants the specifics of voting qualifications to the states. The only reason there were any adjustments was due to an abuse of the system by Southern States. I think it is far more horrible that you support the tyranny of the uneducated mob... allowing people that simply do not understand the issues to be the judges of them.

Ah, the "tyranny of the uneducated mob." I wonder what happened to make you such a pessimistic conservative at your young age. Oh, and I'm going off now, so please do not take my subsequent silence as flight from the argument. I just have to get on with my so-called life.

Kroando.

You are pretty naive for someone pursuing a career in law. You realize I'm sure, that voting rights were not handed out like party favors during an otherwise dull congressional cycle? Everyone in the US who has the right to vote paid with it in blood during some point in their cultural or family history. Do you really think that you can so easily remove such an item and expect no fallout?

Of course, even when operating out of the confines of reality, your view reeks of elitist thought. How can you quantify knowledge as a basis for a right? What exact facts or positions must one be aware of to protect their interests? Surely you see the ramifications of the future of such a country that would allow this disgusting measure?

Since I have discussed this before, I have some past points that are worth pointing out, though they were based upon a discussion of meritocracy - that is clearly where you are headed:

Alright, so you now have a class of citizens that control the voting process and have more strength as a result of their diminished size. What impetus in the world do they have to let anyone else join their little club? They have power, now they have the power to control who else gets power. The less people that can vote, the more efficacy they have. You are going to create a new class with this motion and before long, voting itself will be a minority exercise.

Of course, I suspect your leaders will hang before that happens :)

The topic is strictly ideological.

From a strictly ideological viewpoint?

Well, since my education stopped at a level far lower than yours, I'll be honest and say that I am not sure what you mean by that, especially considering that political scientists and sociologists use these words slightly differently than uneducated folk like me.

But you can't divorce ideology from technique. If you decide its going to be up to the individual states, for ideological reasons, then you still have to figure out a practical solution to ensure that the same standards are held all over the country.

I swear MTAE posted this exact same thread.

I swear MTAE posted this exact same thread.

except not even MTAE came across as quite so intellectually snobbish.

except not even MTAE came across as quite so intellectually snobbish.

huh?

Edit after reading through his posts: oh i see what you mean.

Do you think it is right that a voter can walk into a booth and say, "I am voting for G. W. Bush because he supports gay marriage." You think that is democracy? You think that is logical?

Yes actually I do. My not liking or liking George Bush based on that topic alone and basing my decision to vote for or against him on that is just as logical as voting for or against him based on his support of a guest worker program, his views on privitizing social security, or his view on the performance of a flat tax. You might not agree with it, but to some people that IS an important issue and while I might not agree that that should be the only thing they're basing their vote on we have no right to deny them the right to vote because of it.

Where will you be willing to draw the line as to what is acceptable for people to base their decision on whom to vote for then, and how many positions do they have to know? Will I have to look over and memorize what every candidate in every election is for or against from my city council member to the President to be allowed to cast a vote?

In my country, only the middle class vote..... And so my country remains a monarchy, with the superiority of the aristocracy enshrined in law.

This is what you get when you upper class ***tards get to run the show. If all your "education" has done is make look down on people and advocate a class system in your home country, then into the dustbin of history with your "education".

Yes actually I do. My not liking or liking George Bush based on that topic alone and basing my decision to vote for or against him on that is just as logical as voting for or against him based on his support of a guest worker program, his views on privitizing social security, or his view on the performance of a flat tax. You might not agree with it, but to some people that IS an important issue and while I might not agree that that should be the only thing they're basing their vote on we have no right to deny them the right to vote because of it.

Where will you be willing to draw the line as to what is acceptable for people to base their decision on whom to vote for then, and how many positions do they have to know? Will I have to look over and memorize what every candidate in every election is for or against from my city council member to the President to be allowed to cast a vote?

You miss his point actually. He isn't saying it's not right to vote for someone based on his belief of gay marriage.

His point that a voter shouldn't be able to vote for George W. Bush because of a belief that George W. Bush supports gay marriage when, in fact, bush does not.

I think the OP isn't saying it's wrong to vote on gay marriage policies, but it's wrong to vote for a politician based on ignorance (IE voting for Bush because of a belief he supports gay marriage, when he doesn't).

What the OP doesn't realize however is that it is the right of the voter to be ignorant. There is no requirement a voter need be RIGHT. Likewise there's no requirement that a voter ever vote on political matters, rather than personal, non political means.

In short there is not, nor should there be, any absolute requirement that the voter know what he is voting for, if that voter choses not to.

. I only think that a voter should know what it is he/she is voting for.

Then get a decent "voting awareness" campaign started to inform people how to vote properly. That's what i think should happen.

"Every lowly cook should be able to govern the state,
Therefore every lowly cook must learn to govern
the state" -V.L Lenin

The question should not even be raised. The interests of all citizens matter
So we can't even question your assumptions now?

Not at all. In 2006 elections the largest voting block was democrats. Yet there are still 200 republicans in the house. Representative democracy representes the will of the people, in a rought configuration with their majority. If it represented only the plurality there would be no republicans in congress.
Each district is represented solely by the views of its plurality.

Plus, since it's a straight majority rules system in the house, the Democrats dominate the Republicans.

The irradication of the two party system will not irradicate that issue. As long as there are men (or women for that matter) of ambition with a desire for power, there will be politicians attempting to take hold of the ignorant to use them to their advantage. The solution is taking away the voting rights of the ignorant voter, making them worthless to the ambitious politician. If a politician was forced to campaign for the well educated vote... outcomes would be much different.


Would outcomes be different? How are well educated people any less manipulative than "ignorant" people? I personally know some VERY intelligent people, who know much more about government than I, yet most of them have opinions about their candidate that make me wonder if they aren't like the "ignorant" people you talk about. There are always going to be people, however smart they fancy themselves to be, that have weak willpower and won't be able to make decisions on their own. It sounds to me like you're a bit of an egocentric, that those who don't know as much as you would like shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's not about knowledge. Like I said earlier, it's about OPINION. Given the choice between voting for a Senator or a redneck, I can vote for either for any reason whatsoever. A lot has to be said about the CHARACTER of the candidates, and not just knowledge of their STANDINGS; if the "ignorant" candidate is pleasant company, while the Senator is an A-hole, I'll gladly stick with the greater personality.

Opinions, sir, opinions.

You seem far to immature to be over the age of fifteen, but then again...

Also, I just so happen to resent that comment, implying 15 year olds are without maturity. As of yet I have to boast of my "intelligence" because, lacking any sort of college education to this point, I must seem "ignorant" in comparison to your Godliness.

Each district is represented solely by the views of its plurality.

But the government is not a single district. While each district is represented by a plurality, each district may have different pluralities, resulting in a government that is reasonably proportionate. There's a difference between a district and a government.


Plus, since it's a straight majority rules system in the house, the Democrats dominate the Republicans.

That's a factor in this government, it's not a factor in all representative districts.

I seriously doubt you went to college, let alone Yale, but that is irrelevant. Simply because I use 'big words' does not make me snobbish... and from those people that I know that went to Yale... they define the epitome of snobbishness. Additionally, Villanova is by no means middle of the road.

What the OP doesn't realize however is that it is the right of the voter to be ignorant. There is no requirement a voter need be RIGHT. Likewise there's no requirement that a voter ever vote on political matters, rather than personal, non political means.
No, there isn't. And it should be changed. I do not believe it is the right of the individual to be ignorant and vote. Right now, constitutionally it is. An ammendment is needed. I believe that one must hold some sort understanding, or the entire system collapses. If the entire nation voted ignorantly, the nation would fail, and no nation can legally perpetuate it's own failure.

@Red_Letter. That is not actually true, but anyways. Because one's ancestors bled, it gives the individual the right to vote without any understanding of what he/she is voting for? If anything, an uneducated, apathetic voter is disgracing their ancestors for showing so little respect for what they died for. If one cannot take the least bit of time to look over the issues... no, they do not deserve the right.

@Athenys Pallas. Arthais responded to your post as well as I could have.

@Li Shra. And if you didn't know anything about either? If you didn't know that the man you were voting for was actually a rapist murderer, that supported eating babies and killing cute little fuzy animals? You still have the right to vote for him... not knowing anything about him? Thats insane... and I did not mean to be offensive.

Then get a decent "voting awareness" campaign started to inform people how to vote properly. That's what i think should happen.

"Every lowly cook should be able to govern the state,
Therefore every lowly cook must learn to govern
the state" -V.L Lenin
No money, no time... and the people I would be trying to make aware... usually dont give a shit.

@Farnhamia. What makes you think im conservative? I am pro-gay rights, support woman's right to choose (except late 3rd term), am strictly against any mention of God in any state matters... I am quite liberal when it comes to social matters in the US.

you cant be serious. Limiting voting to only people who are smart and wealthy. that takes awy from the whole point of democracy!!! equal represntation for all. not just people who are political educated, but any one who has an oppinion and fells they need to vote!!!!

furthermore, you are a trator to your own belifes by thinking that peoply cant think for themselvs

I seriously doubt you went to college, let alone Yale, but that is irrelevant. Simply because I use 'big words' does not make me snobbish

no, but your instance that you somehow have some valuable insight because you've managed to complete 3 years of college does.

... and from those people that I know that went to Yale... they define the epitome of snobbishness.

May I give you a little advice for your future law school endevors? "anecdotal circumstances does not equate to evidence".

Additionally, Villanova is by no means middle of the road.

There are, if memory serves, 194 or so JD granting institutions in the country, not counting military JAG. Villanova law is ranked consistantly around 70. Congratulations, you're mediocre.

No, there isn't. And it should be changed.

No, no it doesn't.

I do not believe it is the right of the individual to be ignorant and vote.

Tough shit.

Right now, constitutionally it is.

Yes, yes it is.

An ammendment is needed.

No, not it isn't.

I believe that one must hold some sort understanding, or the entire system collapses. If the entire nation voted ignorantly, the nation would fail,

See, here's where I don't think you should be bragging about your fantabulous education there junior. Lemme clue you into something. Unsubstantiated claims are worth exactly jack shit all. "you believe"? That's nice. Prove it.

I don't give a shit what you believe. I don't give a shit what your OPINION is. You want to make a claim, you want to convince me? Cite it, bitch. You are supposedly a poly sci major and you go off making arguments based on the premise of "I believe" and you expect to actually be awarded a degree? And you have the gall to call yourself educated?

You came here, you made an argument, you expect people to buy into that argument, and the only thing you can offer is "I believe"? You fail, try again another day when you actually have learned what it means to substantiate your position. Where are your studies? Where is your evidence? What do you base your opinion on? At this point I don't see anything other than a chicken little approach of "OMG TEH SKI ARE FALLENG!"

I don't buy it, and you haven't provided one SINGLE shred of evidence to support your position. And until you do it's just an unfounded, unsubstantated opinion. And that is absolutly worthless.

seriously, what do they teach kids these days...


and no nation can legally perpetuate it's own failure.

For the love of my profession I hope you never become a lawyer.

@Li Shra. And if you didn't know anything about either? If you didn't know that the man you were voting for was actually a rapist murderer, that supported eating babies and killing cute little fuzy animals? You still have the right to vote for him... not knowing anything about him? Thats insane...

I'll admit that some knowledge of what's going on should be expected. But then again, all people are expected to not want to eat babies and such in the first place. In a perfect world, all people would pay attention to their government. Realize, though, that some people just want to be lead around, are purposefully ignorant, because they don't want to make their own decisions. It's easy for a revolutionary fighting for his freedom to understand government, but our country has lasted for over 200 years; people have become used to just expecting that government will handle itself, so that they can go on with living their lives, not having to worry about politics. If all hell went into the handbasket, then I'd guarantee that more people would be paying attention to the issues, but we live relatively safe from all decision making.

And about getting the law passed for the mandatory test for voting? Your argument is that it could be used to limit the use of so-called "sheep" by conniving politicians, but it's those same politicians that cast the deciding votes on what laws go into effect. If indeed this had a chance of survival, which i doubt, it would be a long, ardurous struggle.

Arthais, I never 'bragged' about my education. My OP simply said I was a college student that wanted to discuss the topic. You however, with your middle aged inferiority complex resulting from your being rejected from college, started screaming havoc. You claimed I was being snobbish, which I was not. You started the entire situation. I never said I had some valuable insight, I simply stated my opinion. You're high school-level maturity is what started the name calling... pretty sad when our nation's lawyers resort to yelling 'BITCH!' as soon as they are intellectually outmatched. However I am most definitely sure that you never attended college, much less Yale, and make around 40k a year now punching numbers for some bank. In all likelihood, you simply thought of the 'smartest' school you could, and threw that down, hoping that you would intimidate me into accepting your unsupported, uneducated opinions. You're a failure. Congratulations.

There are, if memory serves, 194 or so JD granting institutions in the country, not counting military JAG. Villanova law is ranked consistently around 70. Congratulations, you're mediocre
Again, congratulations, you have successfully failed in middle school mathematics. Seventy is not the middle of 194, nor within twenty schools. *Claps to your stupidity* Regardless, making it into an above average law school is, in comparison to you're failure to enter any college, amazing.

The rest of your posts are simply one line opinions, all of which are posted without any argument. You don’t care what I believe? Then why are you reading what I post? Why are you responding to my posts? I understand you have time to kill as you push numbers on your calculator to fill the clock, but im sure there is something else on the internet that could entertain you. There is no way you have a Yale Education, no way in hell you're a lawyer. You have the grammar and spelling skills of a nine year old, and argue like an eighth grade bully attempting to steal a kid's lunch money. You have no apparent understanding of logical functions, nor basic reason. Please, learn to debate before you claim to have a Yale law school education... or at least... learn to spell.

@Tuka tan. You have changed my point from 'Educated on the Issues' to 'Smart and Wealthy'. How rich do you have to be to understand that Bush is against abortion? How rich do you have to be to comprehend that Bush is in favor of 'staying the course' in Iraq? Not very. Intelligence... and especially wealth, are not needed to vote under my proposition.

Again, congratulations, you have successfully failed in middle school mathematics. Seventy is not the middle of 194, nor within twenty schools. *Claps to your stupidity* Regardless, making it into an above average law school is, in comparison to you're failure to enter any college, amazing.

Lemme drop a lil bit of learnin on ya, alright?

Schools are divided amongst tiers, traditionally in 3 level tiers. 194 schools divided in thirds is 64 on the top and bottom, 65 in the middle.

1-64
65-130
131-194

now...where does 70 fall? at very best, it must suck to know that fully 1/3 of law students got into better places than you did. hint, LSATs is not a test to see how many words you can spell on a scantron. You might have wanted to reference back to the test booklet that came with it.


The rest of your posts are simply one line opinions,

All you have done is post opinion. You haven't posted fact of any kind. And since your entire line of reason, your whole initial "argument" should I lower the word to call it that, is based on opinion.

Therefore there doesn't need to be debate, there doesn't need to be discussion. You've given me nothing to debate, you've given me nothing to discuss. You've given me your opinion, that's it. And then, when I challenge you to, for once, actually substantiate your claim in some degree, you resort to more petty asshattery.

I don't have to do your work for you. If all you give me is opinion, not fact, then all I'm going to give you back is opinion, not fact. And in my OPINION your OPINION is bullshit, berefet of any logical cohesion, fundamental understanding of the process of franchisement, and draped utterly in your own perceived intellectual superiority that you keep draping yourself in, fully assured of your own standing that you can't possible realize you've been outmatched. It prevents you from realizing "oh shit, I lost" and instead tries to fall back on the same argument you used at the beginning of this, "LISTEN TO ME, I GOT TO COLLAGE!" (yes, that was intentional) and turn to pathetic schoolyard arguments of "you're fat, you're ugly" modified with your own fun little slant to be "you're old, you're poor" as a shelter to deceive yourself that I can't possibly be right, I can't possibly know what I'm talking about. I can't possibly be *gasp* smarter than you, because then you'd have to admit you didn't substantiate crap.

And it is that same perception of intellectual superiority which unfortunatly for you prevents whatever little part of rational logic existing in your brain from going "oh shit, I never actually made an logical argument" and realizing that in the real world, when you say something...you back it the fuck up.

Because until you do, it's just your one man's opinion. And opinion isn't worth anything. You are not special enough for it to be worth something. Your opinion doesn't count in an argument. Your opinion is not persuasive. Your opinion as a general rule, is worthless.

That's just a lil something they taught us at Yale.

i was just simply comenting on the fact that the poor and uneduacted, even though they still have an opinion and can think for themselves, tend to be less political minded. not every one watches meet the press and gets cnn you know.