Universal suffrage is the root of all evil.
kenny olav
Posts: 3,319
Honestly, I don't know what other conclusion to reach. Everything else that is important and affects the lives of others requires some kind of certification. If you want to drive a car, operate on someone's heart, get a job as a meat inspector, et cetera, you need evidence that you are capable of doing so, but somehow electing those who make decisions for us requires nothing more than proof that you are at least 18 years old and a citizen.
OK, so then, who writes the test that citizens would need to take for their "Voter's License"? And what questions would it ask? That's where it gets tricky because the test shouldn't be biased in any way (except against the clueless) ... and I may come back to that later. But for now, I just think I should have confidence that my fellow voters know something about what they're doing.
And since there'd be a lot less people voting, it'll be easier to count the votes!
OK, so then, who writes the test that citizens would need to take for their "Voter's License"? And what questions would it ask? That's where it gets tricky because the test shouldn't be biased in any way (except against the clueless) ... and I may come back to that later. But for now, I just think I should have confidence that my fellow voters know something about what they're doing.
And since there'd be a lot less people voting, it'll be easier to count the votes!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I suggested something similar years ago here and was branded an elitist.
Are you just saying this because you feel people don't agree with you?
Everyone does deserve the right to vote. I just want to create a low hurdle so that people have to care even a tiny little bit.
i am sorry but i totally disagree that everyone deserves the right to vote. i admit that i would be a bad voter as i do not pay enough attention nor fully understand certain issues. there are way too many idiots out there that get hung up on idiotic issues.
i like the idea of a "Voting card" or something. i think a basic test for racism/sexism would be a requirement. anyone that has a bias against someone because of a physical characteristic of ANY kind is IMO the worst of all idiots and should not be allowed to vote.
the more i think about it, the more i question the practice. i'm taking election law right now and the constitution does not actually explicitly guarantee voting rights. in fact, the supreme court has in the past upheld literacy tests and similar measures. many states initially required that anyone who votes must be either a property owner or taxpayer.
there is some sense in that, i think. the masses are herd animals. humans have always looked to authority and many are simply not equipped to think for themselves or understand the long term consequences of various policies on complex systems.
A great idea but I see that a *voter's license* sliding down a slippery slope into being manipulated. Manipulated by those who would feel that certain voters could be considered undesirable potential voters.
We have a tough enough time NOW getting votes to be counted correctly.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Now it may be frustrating that people with little knowledge throws a vote, but on the other hand, we have no reason to assume that they dont spread out and vote (uninformed) on many candidates/parties. Idiots vote both republican and democrat, and hell, third parties too. The problem as I see it, is that politics is made into a spectator sport. And that is to blame on the media and the politicians themselves, not the not-so-up-to-date voters. If the voters would be taken seriously, they would act seriously. My point is, the problem is not the masses, but the structure.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Funny you should mention that. That's how I think we should vote also. A nice easy10 question Scantron test using a No. 2. pencil. Who ever is closest to your views get your vote.
Yes, the structure is a problem, but it is the masses that uphold that structure.
literally holding the structure up with their hands, all they need to do is let go. But they don't. Or maybe they just can't.
We all uphold the structure. But I dont see any solution in taking away people's right to vote. We need democratic structures where people have real influence. Then you'll see participation in the process. Large scale democratic processes are way too remote for most people. And when they get large scale enough, it is hard for politicians to make good on their intentions materially, so we slide into cheer-leading without any substance. I see America as further down that road than other countries. All that talk about the presidential candidates, yet one is pressed to find any real info on things they want to do with the power they seek. Vague innuendos and talk about how stupid the other is seems par for the course. I dont blame people for tuning out of the whole thing.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
i share the concern of elitism. i think, if there was a 'democracy test', that it should be something that the vast majority of people could pass if they tried to, and no citizen should be excluded from taking the test. at first i thought it should be more than just a basic civics test, that people should be tested on the key issues of the day, and that they should be retested before every election, but that would be a nightmare to organize. but then i realized that all we need to do is prove that the voter cares enough to go through a process to exercise his or her right to vote. so really, a basic civics test is all we need, and the test should be retaken every 2 years or every 4 years at the most, i say. by proving that the voter cares, we can be confident that he or she is paying attention to the issues, and is not just voting based on reactionary feelings.
in the 90's,