The right to vote

[occupied]

Yet you, as an anarchist, shouldn't.
Really, did you you just say that?
I'm wrong for opposing it and you are right for opposing it.

Opposing what? Your statement needs editing for clarity.

I'm opposing the powers that say the ignorant should vote to keep them in power, you're opposing the powers that are kept in power by the ignorant yet wanting the ignorant to keep that ability.
Anarchist away. You'll keep getting what you've got because you'll keep letting the ignorant do what they do.

Nothing has ever been gained by attempting to disenfranchise voters, no matter how stupidly sheep-like they are in their politics. Making the law is like making the sausage, nothing can be done to make it pretty. Like it or not we are much better off letting everyone vote rather than making it difficult and challenging. Voting should be so easy and convenient that no one sits home for any reason other than just not wanting to, anything less is to treat our citizens like retards until they prove otherwise, that's fascism.

 

[The T]

I'd want everybody to take it.

I would as well. It might wake people up as to what they're voting for, and possibly awaken people to what they stand to lose...and it might even mean their right to vote.

Educated voters are the GLUE that keeps this Republic intact. WE have too many low info voters.

Pose some sample questions and we will soon see the flaw in making people take a test.

Did you observe my FIRST post in this thread? As a matter of course? You didn't, thus your question. Go back and look. And don't tell me it isn't important for people to know history.

 

[occupied]

I would as well. It might wake people up as to what they're voting for, and possibly awaken people to what they stand to lose...and it might even mean their right to vote.

Educated voters are the GLUE that keeps this Republic intact. WE have too many low info voters.

Pose some sample questions and we will soon see the flaw in making people take a test.

Did you observe my FIRST post in this thread? As a matter of course? You didn't, thus your question. Go back and look. And don't tell me it isn't important for people to know history.

How would a test educate anyone? The test would be public and standardized and ten minutes after it was published there would be a phone ap to give the correct answers as in (ABBCDDAABCA). You underestimate people's ingenuity in being lazy. You want smarter voters? Support education that includes critical thinking even if it makes some kids see the treasured beliefs of their parents as empty ideological crap.

 

[The T]

Pose some sample questions and we will soon see the flaw in making people take a test.

Did you observe my FIRST post in this thread? As a matter of course? You didn't, thus your question. Go back and look. And don't tell me it isn't important for people to know history.

How would a test educate anyone? The test would be public and standardized and ten minutes after it was published there would be a phone ap to give the correct answers as in (ABBCDDAABCA). You underestimate people's ingenuity in being lazy. You want smarter voters? Support education that includes critical thinking even if it makes some kids see the treasured beliefs of their parents as empty ideological crap.

Try again. A test would show if a person is worthy to vote showing they had knowledge of their system of government. Asd to the rest of your post? Gobbledygook.

 

[Indofred]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

Do government policies affect those of lower IQ's? Then they should vote. And what unbiased source would test people in the first place?

Government polices often effect dogs but you don't let them vote.
I don't believe you should have the right to vote if you can't understand what you're voting for.
As far as America goes, you have often amended the constitution; do it again.

 

[Steinlight]

Enacting a civics test or IQ test as a requirement for voting would mean the end of the Democrat Party. Not that I like the GOP, but I would enjoy the Democrat Party collapsing overnight. Also, if you thought the LA Riots were bad, just imagine them nationwide at 10x the intensity if these laws were enacted.

Not that I would mind civil unrest either, we need it at this point to break the system and start anew.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Intelligent people will still vote for idiots.

Also, political parties often make their policies for the people who do vote, so, they'd stop poor people (who are often less intelligent) from having a voice, and it'd just be more of the same and then some.

25% of blacks and hispanics are in poverty, 7% of whites. See how this goes?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Congress as currently constructed is not interested in Amending the Constitution, evidenced by the slow creep of Congressional and Executive powers usurping more power then Constitutionally allowed and no amendment forth coming to actually grant them said power.

Further I seriously doubt you could convince the majority of voters in 37 States to approve losing their right to ultimately vote.

 

[American_Jihad]

NAACP: Bring Photo ID To Protest Photo ID Laws

NAACP guidelines for marchers

NAACP: Bring Photo ID To Protest Photo ID Laws | Truth Revolt

 

[auditor0007]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

Great, everyone wants a test that matches their agenda. No thanks.

 

[RandallFlagg]

As long as you are an American citizen, and of legal age, and are not a felon, you have the absolute right to cast a ballot. Doesn't matter how stupid you may or may not be. PERIOD. I would NOT, however, be adverse to a stipulation that the voter must PROVE who they are by providing a photo ID.

stupidity is the only possible answer for Barry being in office for a second term.

 

[FA_Q2]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

Do government policies affect those of lower IQ's? Then they should vote. And what unbiased source would test people in the first place?

Government polices often effect dogs but you don't let them vote.
I don't believe you should have the right to vote if you can't understand what you're voting for.
As far as America goes, you have often amended the constitution; do it again.

A lot of people believe that and most of them recognize that it is nothing more than a simple wish that the electorate enlighten themselves. There is no possible way to implement such a far reaching power within the government that is even remotely healthy.

I would like the electorate to stay home to if they don’t have a clue about the issues. There is no way in hell that I would give the government the power to decide who was ‘worth’ of a vote or not – a fundamental right codified in the constitution btw.

There is no difference in this than allowing the government to give a news station a objectivity test before allowing them on the air or a vulgarity test before allowing you to speak at a public event. Why would you allow such inroads to one right but balk at the others? If you don’t balk then there is nothing I can say – such a position is authoritarian and counter to the principals that our government embodies.

Who writes that test is enormously powerful. It could essentially eliminate liberals or conservatives from the voting pool. That I would be enormously detrimental to our country as a whole.

 

[FA_Q2]

Worthy of note here is that intelligence has no baring whatsoever on your political knowledge or your ability to select a representative that is capable. Einstein was possibly the most intelligent person that ever lived (or at least one of them) and he was not capable of tying his own shoes. Intellect is not an indication of capability.

 

[Politico]

Hell yes. And they should have an investment in what they are voting for.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's a better idea.

How about EDUCATION?

You know, instead of the traditional subjects taught in schools, how about teaching things that are actually useful in the modern world.

I'd say civic participation, rights, and things like this, perhaps moving on to politics from the point of view of the voter in late teens.
But not only that, teaching skills that people actually need, like looking at information from sources and making decisions, and things like this.

Been helping some kid with the SATs recently and it does want you to make a good argument, however it also backs it up with stuff that is often traditional, often people will use literature and history, which I don't have a problem with, I just know that a lot of kids get turned off by this sort of thing.

Education is the key to making citizens of the future who have the skills to do well, but also if you have shareholders who can choose a CEO, they're going to try and appoint the best people for the job, in politics, they tend to not choose the best people for the job because the average voter doesn't know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

Do government policies affect those of lower IQ's? Then they should vote. And what unbiased source would test people in the first place?

Government polices often effect dogs but you don't let them vote.
I don't believe you should have the right to vote if you can't understand what you're voting for.
As far as America goes, you have often amended the constitution; do it again.

Dogs are incapable of higher reasoning and their owners are permitted to vote. That's a ridiculous analogy and you might as well have used cars or toasters as your example. Humans, low IQ's or not, are capable of higher reasoning. And you completely failed to address the point of an unbiased source giving the test.

Another question to consider, how many people advocating this test would fail it? Not on the basis that they're not intelligent, but on the basis that the "answers" to the questions simply wouldn't conform to their ideology. It's likely that the government, hardly an unbiased third party, at some level is going to administer this test. I, as a libertarian, oppose the power of the government. How likely am I to pass a test put out by an organization that I want to strip of powers?

 

[Unkotare]

Here's a better idea.

How about EDUCATION?

You know, instead of the traditional subjects taught in schools, how about teaching things that are actually useful in the modern world.

I'd say civic participation, rights, and things like this, perhaps moving on to politics from the point of view of the voter in late teens.
But not only that, teaching skills that people actually need, like looking at information from sources and making decisions, and things like this..

They already do that.

 

[Edgetho]

The basic premise of this thread is flawed.

There is no right to vote.

The only right to vote is whatever rights the States give you. The Federal Constitution only forbids discrimination in cases where the States have granted their citizens the right to vote.

Anybody who says otherwise, just doesn't understand the Constitution.... Or is a Public School Teacher

 

[norwegen]

The basic premise of this thread is flawed.

There is no right to vote.

The only right to vote is whatever rights the States give you. The Federal Constitution only forbids discrimination in cases where the States have granted their citizens the right to vote.

Anybody who says otherwise, just doesn't understand the Constitution.... Or is a Public School Teacher

True enough, but to be even more accurate, voting is a state-granted privilege. That the voting amendments call participation in the franchise a "right" only confuses the issue, setting aflutter the hearts of liberals who wish our republic to be a democracy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The right to vote shall no be infringed ....

The right is assumed.

Same wording as: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed ....

So the right to vote is well-established.
And you can't deny that right based on the inability to pass a test, or pay a tax.

But I have no problem with a photo ID - as long as they are free and easy to obtain.