Voter Turnout and Qualifications

[FA_Q2]

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 actually don’t think designing or agreeing on such a test would be hard at all. Basic civics questions are all that would belong and those are not partisan or questionable.

I actually would like to see voters stay the hell home when they have no idea what they are voting on. Apathetic voters have brought this nation to its knees as I see it in supporting special interest people that can raise the most cash. It is disgusting what we allow into office these days and what is news worthy. It is surprising how many people cannot articulate a single position of the candidates during an election BUT they sure as hell knew who strapped a dog on the roof and who ate dog.

The problem is that is a long and dark road to go down though. As soon as you give the government the power to begin limiting voters based on arbitrary parameters, they are going to increase that control. A little here and a little there and before you know it you are going to have tests that were nothing like the ones that were originally designed. Tests that are aimed at ensuring the ‘correct’ vote is the only vote.

There is very little that I trust the government with when it comes to infringing on my rights. I can’t understand how someone could support infringing on one of the most important in such a fundamental way as blocking your ability to vote. Most of us will not accept testing to exercise our second amendment rights, our first amendment rights or any other right that we hold so dear – what accept it with our voting rights?

An ignorant electorate is simply something that we are going to have to deal with at times if we wish to remain a free republic.

 

[BlackSand]

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?

Whether or not you know who is President or your Current Representatives has nothing to do with the policies they will enact through legislation.

If you look at what drives the vote … It is the issues and what the candidates say about what is important to the voter.
Once politics became more about protecting territory than the fundamental practice of governing with responsibility … It doesn't really matter who is selling you out.

You can have full knowledge of the issues … But that doesn't make the legislation or your choices any better.
One way or the other someone is going to get elected … And I am sick and tired of choosing the lesser of two evils.

How about we put the candidates to the test?
If a Senator in Congress seriously expresses concerns about Guam capsizing because we have troops there … Why should we have to suffer under legislation that Senator passes into law?
To me ... It doesn't matter that Senator was elected in his District ... He is incapable of making any decision I could trust.

.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you look at what drives the vote … It is the issues and what the candidates say about what is important to the voter.

Well, no not really. For most people, it seems that they only important thing is the little letter next to the name. Many people could not articulate a position that the politician they are voting for actually holds.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU]Harlem voters - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BlackSand]

If you look at what drives the vote … It is the issues and what the candidates say about what is important to the voter.

Well, no not really. For most people, it seems that they only important thing is the little letter next to the name. Many people could not articulate a position that the politician they are voting for actually holds.

This is the statement that followed the one you quoted and addresses that point in particular

Once politics became more about protecting territory than the fundamental practice of governing with responsibility … It doesn't really matter who is selling you out.

They still vote for the letter next to the name for a reason.
I bet they could tell you why they vote R or D ... And I bet that whatever they tell you will have a lot to do with the issues important to them.

.

 

[Connery]

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?

Knowledge of who is running or who is elected is secondary to knowing what the issues are and how they may effect the individual voter. It is after understanding those issues and digesting how they may impact the voter does a name of any candidate or elected official become important and is of any real consequence.

 

[longknife]

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 disagree.

If anything, Low Information Voters are more likely to turn out as the Democrat machine makes massive efforts to get them to the polls - showing them who and what to vote for. A hot cup of coffee. A free meal. A few $$$. Voila! A voter!!!