Voter Turnout and Qualifications

[jwoodie]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your position serves reason.

The rise of populism has certainly proven the dangers in encouraging the 'intellectually less fortunate' to vote.

Years of the Intellectually Less Fortunate shoved into population centers, electing individuals of no moral underpinnings, forcing a key economic component to remove objective principle from the system upon which it relies to maintain viability, results in the worst economic depression in the history of the nation. Who then turn out to elect a person of no moral underpinnings, who since being elected has managed to maintain six years of economic malaise, averaging <1% economic growth and consistently declining double digit unemployment, while consistently telling anyone who will listen that 'things are getting better', even as he passes policy he swore to them would reduce their health expenses, but which in reality is exponentially increasing their medical liabilities.

Yep, I'd say you're on to something there.

 

[BobPlumb]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

I agree with you. I dislike the advertisements that try to shame people into voting. If you have researched the candidates and know why you are voting for a particular person then vote. If you don't have a clue, then stay home.

Edit:shame instead of same.

 

[oldfart]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

A society where few vote is a society several steps closer to despotism. The causes do not matter.

 

[jwoodie]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

A society where few vote is a society several steps closer to despotism. The causes do not matter.

So you prefer bread and circuses?

 

[oldfart]

A society where few vote is a society several steps closer to despotism. The causes do not matter.

So you prefer bread and circuses?

No. I prefer an informed electorate. Your posts indicate your only desire is to limit the vote to right wing ideologues and racists such as yourself. Your above quote clearly puts you in both categories. Thanks for making my job so easy.

Perhaps you should support bringing back the poll tax?

 

[BobPlumb]

A society where few vote is a society several steps closer to despotism. The causes do not matter.

So you prefer bread and circuses?

No. I prefer an informed electorate. Your posts indicate your only desire is to limit the vote to right wing ideologues and racists such as yourself. Your above quote clearly puts you in both categories. Thanks for making my job so easy.

Perhaps you should support bringing back the poll tax?

Nice play of the race card!

 

[Intense]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

Interesting point. I think you would need to show that the people that actually voted were genuinely civic minded, as opposed to bought and paid for by either party, what's in it for me, crowd.

Sometimes I think there are those so disappointed in where we are today, that, they have just given up. There are those that support the Electoral College, for example, and those whom do not. How many just stay home because they know their vote to be pointless in a Presidential Election, because they are a Minority in their State of residence? How about the interpretation of how a vote is cast being varied. If I'm a Democrat, but in frustration, I leave everything blank. In some States, that could be interpreted that because I am registered this or that, I must have meant to vote for X. That is misrepresentation, not fairness. How about a Box for None of the Above. I bet that would bring out more voters.

 

[iRage]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

I agree if that is the case. Though i can't help but to wonder if the people currently heavily involved in the voting process are the same people who are the most dedicated to their views. i.e. people like the ones so commonly found on this Site that generally accept something as fact because it fits their view well, discount opposing views/opinions as "liberal" or "conservative" nonsense, and generally take little time to observe "the big picture".

I only say this because I can very easily see many of the members of this site as voters. Also, from a personally experience --outside of a local church where the polling booth were-- I publicly declared my support for the democrats of the relevant state election and the looks and replies I got....extremely unwarranted....extremely. A local, potentially isolated event yes...but I can't help but wonder. Plus, I find it hard to believe that candidates would spend such vast amounts of money on campaign adds generally aimed at smearing other candidates (assuming that "people with little knowledge" would look beyond such ads.)

 

[freedombecki]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

I agree if that is the case. Though i can't help but to wonder if the people currently heavily involved in the voting process are the same people who are the most dedicated to their views. i.e. people like the ones so commonly found on this Site that generally accept something as fact because it fits their view well, discount opposing views/opinions as "liberal" or "conservative" nonsense, and generally take little time to observe "the big picture".

I only say this because I can very easily see many of the members of this site as voters. Also, from a personally experience --outside of a local church where the polling booth were-- I publicly declared my support for the democrats of the relevant state election and the looks and replies I got....extremely unwarranted....extremely. A local, potentially isolated event yes...but I can't help but wonder. Plus, I find it hard to believe that candidates would spend such vast amounts of money on campaign adds generally aimed at smearing other candidates (assuming that "people with little knowledge" would look beyond such ads.)

Welcome to USMB, iRage. I agree. Calumny used to be against the law. Now in politics, anything goes because people believe the smiling face whose little white lies are supported by others in order to grab power.

There's a measure of truth in what woodie said, imho, plus the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world--union teachers are breeding school children to follow the dictates of one party, regardless of what the facts the other side has to present are.

 

[hazlnut]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

I don't agree that complacency is good for a Republic with democratic elections. Low voter turnout, especially in off-year elections, has a allowed a small active minority to to control the outcome of the election.

I do agree that voters should be informed and have a basic understand of how our Government works at the state and federal level.

I don't think people need to be "interested" in politics, but they should have civic pride and look forward to doing their part.

 

[BillyZane]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

I don't agree that complacency is good for a Republic with democratic elections. Low voter turnout, especially in off-year elections, has a allowed a small active minority to to control the outcome of the election.

I do agree that voters should be informed and have a basic understand of how our Government works at the state and federal level.

I don't think people need to be "interested" in politics, but they should have civic pride and look forward to doing their part.

Perhaps interest isn't the right word, but certainly voters should have an understanding of what it is they are voting on. Rather than just be your typical dumb "I always vote D (or R) " candidate.

I would advocate some sort of litmus test to vote. That test wouldn't have anything to do with anything, other than determining whether a person has a basic understanding of the principles of our nation. I don't think "name the current POTUS" is a legitimate test of such understanding either.

I think we need to ask questions that test a person's knowledge of the COTUS , and by that I don't mean names, and dates; I mean a fundamental understanding of our rights AND responsibilities as citizens of this country questioned by a variety of questions presenting circumstances that the voter must identify .

I'm afraid my test would disqualify every idiot who believes that they have the right to tell any other consenting adults that they can't marry from voting and would likewise disqualify every idiot who believes that they have the right to force someone else to do business with them from voting. Just as two examples; and thus would never be implemented. But one can dream.

 

[oldfart]

So you prefer bread and circuses?

No. I prefer an informed electorate. Your posts indicate your only desire is to limit the vote to right wing ideologues and racists such as yourself. Your above quote clearly puts you in both categories. Thanks for making my job so easy.

Perhaps you should support bringing back the poll tax?

Nice play of the race card!

On reflection, you are right to call me on this one. Overuse of the term "racist" degrades the meaning, and the "bread and circuses" reference is not enough to sustain it. Thanks to you for pointing this out and an apology to jwoodie for a misuse of the term.

 

[oldfart]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

I don't agree that complacency is good for a Republic with democratic elections. Low voter turnout, especially in off-year elections, has a allowed a small active minority to to control the outcome of the election.

I do agree that voters should be informed and have a basic understand of how our Government works at the state and federal level.

I don't think people need to be "interested" in politics, but they should have civic pride and look forward to doing their part.

Perhaps interest isn't the right word, but certainly voters should have an understanding of what it is they are voting on. Rather than just be your typical dumb "I always vote D (or R) " candidate.

I would advocate some sort of litmus test to vote. That test wouldn't have anything to do with anything, other than determining whether a person has a basic understanding of the principles of our nation. I don't think "name the current POTUS" is a legitimate test of such understanding either.

I think we need to ask questions that test a person's knowledge of the COTUS , and by that I don't mean names, and dates; I mean a fundamental understanding of our rights AND responsibilities as citizens of this country questioned by a variety of questions presenting circumstances that the voter must identify .

I'm afraid my test would disqualify every idiot who believes that they have the right to tell any other consenting adults that they can't marry from voting and would likewise disqualify every idiot who believes that they have the right to force someone else to do business with them from voting. Just as two examples; and thus would never be implemented. But one can dream.

We used to have tests like that. The problem is that they are prone to abuse, as in requiring some individuals to explain arcane parts of the Alabama constitution. They were called "literacy tests" and are now unconstitutional. I'm afraid that as a practical matter no one can devise such a test that sufficient numbers would agree on to create a consensus. Absent a consensus, I don't see how any standard could pass constitutional muster except exclusions for felons, minors, and possibly the mentally ill, and I think even the last would be dicey.

 

[BillyZane]

I don't agree that complacency is good for a Republic with democratic elections. Low voter turnout, especially in off-year elections, has a allowed a small active minority to to control the outcome of the election.

I do agree that voters should be informed and have a basic understand of how our Government works at the state and federal level.

I don't think people need to be "interested" in politics, but they should have civic pride and look forward to doing their part.

Perhaps interest isn't the right word, but certainly voters should have an understanding of what it is they are voting on. Rather than just be your typical dumb "I always vote D (or R) " candidate.

I would advocate some sort of litmus test to vote. That test wouldn't have anything to do with anything, other than determining whether a person has a basic understanding of the principles of our nation. I don't think "name the current POTUS" is a legitimate test of such understanding either.

I think we need to ask questions that test a person's knowledge of the COTUS , and by that I don't mean names, and dates; I mean a fundamental understanding of our rights AND responsibilities as citizens of this country questioned by a variety of questions presenting circumstances that the voter must identify .

I'm afraid my test would disqualify every idiot who believes that they have the right to tell any other consenting adults that they can't marry from voting and would likewise disqualify every idiot who believes that they have the right to force someone else to do business with them from voting. Just as two examples; and thus would never be implemented. But one can dream.

We used to have tests like that. The problem is that they are prone to abuse, as in requiring some individuals to explain arcane parts of the Alabama constitution. They were called "literacy tests" and are now unconstitutional. I'm afraid that as a practical matter no one can devise such a test that sufficient numbers would agree on to create a consensus. Absent a consensus, I don't see how any standard could pass constitutional muster except exclusions for felons, minors, and possibly the mentally ill, and I think even the last would be dicey.

I suppose certainly one might consider them literacy tests, but it would not be. Not in the classical sense. The tests you refer to, were literally literacy tests. The state handed you a, usually, Bible and asked you to read a specific passage. Failure to do so meant no vote.

I propose no such thing. Certainly in an ideal world I'd love to have a literate voting base, and in today's world failure to be literate is inexcusable, but the test I have in mind would simply tests one's understanding of the COTUS. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand your rights, you shouldn't be allowed to exercise them.

 

[jwoodie]

No. I prefer an informed electorate. Your posts indicate your only desire is to limit the vote to right wing ideologues and racists such as yourself. Your above quote clearly puts you in both categories. Thanks for making my job so easy.

Perhaps you should support bringing back the poll tax?

Nice play of the race card!

On reflection, you are right to call me on this one. Overuse of the term "racist" degrades the meaning, and the "bread and circuses" reference is not enough to sustain it. Thanks to you for pointing this out and an apology to jwoodie for a misuse of the term.

Thank you. "Bread and Circuses" was a reference to the decline of the Roman Empire.

 

[oldfart]

Perhaps interest isn't the right word, but certainly voters should have an understanding of what it is they are voting on. Rather than just be your typical dumb "I always vote D (or R) " candidate.

I would advocate some sort of litmus test to vote. That test wouldn't have anything to do with anything, other than determining whether a person has a basic understanding of the principles of our nation. I don't think "name the current POTUS" is a legitimate test of such understanding either.

I think we need to ask questions that test a person's knowledge of the COTUS , and by that I don't mean names, and dates; I mean a fundamental understanding of our rights AND responsibilities as citizens of this country questioned by a variety of questions presenting circumstances that the voter must identify .

I'm afraid my test would disqualify every idiot who believes that they have the right to tell any other consenting adults that they can't marry from voting and would likewise disqualify every idiot who believes that they have the right to force someone else to do business with them from voting. Just as two examples; and thus would never be implemented. But one can dream.

We used to have tests like that. The problem is that they are prone to abuse, as in requiring some individuals to explain arcane parts of the Alabama constitution. They were called "literacy tests" and are now unconstitutional. I'm afraid that as a practical matter no one can devise such a test that sufficient numbers would agree on to create a consensus. Absent a consensus, I don't see how any standard could pass constitutional muster except exclusions for felons, minors, and possibly the mentally ill, and I think even the last would be dicey.

I suppose certainly one might consider them literacy tests, but it would not be. Not in the classical sense. The tests you refer to, were literally literacy tests. The state handed you a, usually, Bible and asked you to read a specific passage. Failure to do so meant no vote.

I propose no such thing. Certainly in an ideal world I'd love to have a literate voting base, and in today's world failure to be literate is inexcusable, but the test I have in mind would simply tests one's understanding of the COTUS. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand your rights, you shouldn't be allowed to exercise them.

Being generous, I will assume you do not understand the implications of your last comment. Must you "understand" your right to First Amendment free speech to be allowed to speak? Who decides if you "understand" your rights? It seems to me that the Bill of Rights was meant to limit government especially in the case of people who do not fully understand their rights. That was the essence of Miranda.

 

[oldfart]

Nice play of the race card!

On reflection, you are right to call me on this one. Overuse of the term "racist" degrades the meaning, and the "bread and circuses" reference is not enough to sustain it. Thanks to you for pointing this out and an apology to jwoodie for a misuse of the term.

Thank you. "Bread and Circuses" was a reference to the decline of the Roman Empire.

Again, I apologize. I understood the reference. Perhaps I lived too long in Mississippi.

 

[BillyZane]

We used to have tests like that. The problem is that they are prone to abuse, as in requiring some individuals to explain arcane parts of the Alabama constitution. They were called "literacy tests" and are now unconstitutional. I'm afraid that as a practical matter no one can devise such a test that sufficient numbers would agree on to create a consensus. Absent a consensus, I don't see how any standard could pass constitutional muster except exclusions for felons, minors, and possibly the mentally ill, and I think even the last would be dicey.

I suppose certainly one might consider them literacy tests, but it would not be. Not in the classical sense. The tests you refer to, were literally literacy tests. The state handed you a, usually, Bible and asked you to read a specific passage. Failure to do so meant no vote.

I propose no such thing. Certainly in an ideal world I'd love to have a literate voting base, and in today's world failure to be literate is inexcusable, but the test I have in mind would simply tests one's understanding of the COTUS. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand your rights, you shouldn't be allowed to exercise them.

Being generous, I will assume you do not understand the implications of your last comment. Must you "understand" your right to First Amendment free speech to be allowed to speak? Who decides if you "understand" your rights? It seems to me that the Bill of Rights was meant to limit government especially in the case of people who do not fully understand their rights. That was the essence of Miranda.

OF COURSE you must understand your first amendment rights before you exercise them. For example, you MUST understand that your right to free speech, does not mean you can run into an airport yelling that you have a bomb and then hide behind the first amendment.

Our number one problem in this country is too many people believe that their rights trump everyone elses or anything else. IE we have too many people in this country trying to tell other people what they can and can't do. When, if they had just the simplest understanding of the COTUS and their rights, they wouldn't do because they would understand that their rights actually are limited. NO rights are absolute.

 

[Asclepias]

I contend that our historically low voter turnout was a blessing in that people with little knowledge or interest in politics did not contaminate the electoral process. It seems to me that a voter in federal elections should, at least, be able to identify the President, Vice President, both Senators and his/her Representative in Congress. What say you?

Interesting point. I think you would need to show that the people that actually voted were genuinely civic minded, as opposed to bought and paid for by either party, what's in it for me, crowd.

Sometimes I think there are those so disappointed in where we are today, that, they have just given up. There are those that support the Electoral College, for example, and those whom do not. How many just stay home because they know their vote to be pointless in a Presidential Election, because they are a Minority in their State of residence? How about the interpretation of how a vote is cast being varied. If I'm a Democrat, but in frustration, I leave everything blank. In some States, that could be interpreted that because I am registered this or that, I must have meant to vote for X. That is misrepresentation, not fairness. How about a Box for None of the Above. I bet that would bring out more voters.

Who is going to decide what civic minded means and why are they qualified to make that call for everyone? A vote for none of the above would just serve as sort of a national poll which would encourage more buying of votes. I believe the schools and parents should be responsible for educating people on voting. Other than that its a right to vote uninformed as you want to be. Not too much we can do about it other than educate people.