Should people who don't know how government works be allowed to vote?

[Greadius]

Originally posted by knowltok2
Translation: we need people to take leadership and run for offices on a platform of what they feel, as opposed to what the party that is giving them money thinks. These people need to be willing to fail time after time until their message gets out. They also have to be willing to potentially hurt their own cause to build a better way (Nader). After all that, when they do succeed, they have to have remained uncorrupted by the experience.

Uhm... you're being extremely unfair to party politics here. The people who make up party platforms have strong feelings too, and there is nothing that says the candidates have to feel that way.
The American parties are designed to be a diverse 'catch-all' to people's feelings and political beliefs. Get a room full of people who call themselves Democrats and try to find 3 issues they ALL agree on it. Its much more difficult than you think. The party system tries to find people who have common enough interests and narrow it down to a single candidate. Nobody is going to be 100% happy with the candidate; the idea is to make them 1% happier than with the othersides candidate.

Nader hurt a lot more than his cause in an attempt to 'build a better way'; which he apparently doesn't have a feasable plan for. Apparently Nader is under the belief that half the country is made up of progressive socialists in hiding.

 

[VoodooAce]

I think at least part of the problem has to do with our size. So many people. So many people that are relatively comfortable and, despite the events of the last 6 months, relatively unthreatened.

One million people could believe in something very strongly and demand change, but if the other 329 Million don't give a ****, then the media doesn't give a ****.

If the media doesn't give a ****, the idea dies on the vine.

Sad but true, imho.

 

[Juize]

Q : Should people who don't know how government works be allowed to vote?

A : No, not even if theyre born in theyre home country.
Unfortunatly, this system is fairly easy to manipulate, so it wouldn't work.

 

[october]

My friend and I talk politics a lot at work. We are both far to the right; in the last election I voted for Howard Phillips of the constitution party and he voted for Pat Buchanan.

We believe that anyone going to vote in a presidential election or one for the US Senate or House should have to take a 5-10 question test on their candidate to be allowed to vote. There are far too many unknowledgable voters out there cancelling out our well thought out votes. It seems like most of them go to the left too, since the left appeals to younger people generally.

-october-

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Greadius
Uhm... you're being extremely unfair to party politics here. The people who make up party platforms have strong feelings too, and there is nothing that says the candidates have to feel that way.
The American parties are designed to be a diverse 'catch-all' to people's feelings and political beliefs. Get a room full of people who call themselves Democrats and try to find 3 issues they ALL agree on it. Its much more difficult than you think. The party system tries to find people who have common enough interests and narrow it down to a single candidate. Nobody is going to be 100% happy with the candidate; the idea is to make them 1% happier than with the othersides candidate.

Nader hurt a lot more than his cause in an attempt to 'build a better way'; which he apparently doesn't have a feasable plan for. Apparently Nader is under the belief that half the country is made up of progressive socialists in hiding.

I don't think I am being that unfair. There is too much voting down party lines for people to really be voting their conciences. I remember thinking during the Clinton Impeachment that there was no way that every democrat thought he shouldn't be impeached, and almost every republican thinking he should be. It was way to complex an issue for all the people in one group to feel the same way. Yet that is the way they vote. We accept that they will compromise, and pass into law things that they don't agree with so that they can get their own pet projects passed. We not only accept it, we encourage it. Maybe this is the way it has to be, but I think that each issue should be reviewed on its own merits, not on the favor system. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

As far as Nader goes, more power to him. He has beliefs and an agenda and wants to run, good for him. Good for Ross Perot too back when he ran. I didn't agree with either of them enough to vote for them, but more power to them for entering the political process. If Nader is going to hurt the democrats, they will have to listen to his group more if they want to be able to include those people. The same will apply to candidates that affect the republicans.

 

[Hurricane]

One thing which always has felt a bit strange to me is that you have to be 18 (in my country, at least) to be allowed to vote. However, you can be 100 years old and suffering of dementia and still be allowed to vote. So what´s the deal? I know most high-school kids are much more up to date with politics than many 40-year olds. My suggestion: lower the voting age to 16! [dance]

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by knowltok2
If Nader is going to hurt the democrats, they will have to listen to his group more if they want to be able to include those people. The same will apply to candidates that affect the republicans.

Last two times the Democrats ran stock & barrel socialist liberals like Nader they got creamed. If he could win an election, people would listen to him, but 3% only matters in tight races. Nader's voters would have been insignificant otherwise. I don't like the idea of the Democratic party pandering to tree-hugging idealists so they can gain their 3% and loose 20% of the moderates. Bad strategy.

Originally posted by Hurricane
My suggestion: lower the voting age to 16! [dance]

I kinda agree with you... uninformed young people don't vote anyway; of course, Republicans realize that young people are still idealistic and compassionate so they would oppose it to the grave.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Greadius
Last two times the Democrats ran stock & barrel socialist liberals like Nader they got creamed. If he could win an election, people would listen to him, but 3% only matters in tight races. Nader's voters would have been insignificant otherwise. I don't like the idea of the Democratic party pandering to tree-hugging idealists so they can gain their 3% and loose 20% of the moderates. Bad strategy.

I agree that it would be a bad strategy, but that is their problem to deal with in trying to be all inclusive. What are we saying when we say that if you can't win, your opinions don't matter? FOr the most part though, I am actually thinking more about the government excluding the President. It's not that the President is immune to undue influence, but that senators and representatives seem to have a higher likelyhood of being influenced. The President has already advanced his career, the Senators and Representatives are still on the make. They are the ones I worry more about looking out for themselves more than their constituency or the country as a whole. A deal here, a contribution there, and before long their re-election is more a factor of how well the please their colleages, and special interest than it is about how well they serve their voters.

Originally posted by Greadius
I kinda agree with you... uninformed young people don't vote anyway; of course, Republicans realize that young people are still idealistic and compassionate so they would oppose it to the grave.

I think there should be one age for everything. Voting, military service, legal responsibility, drinking, etc. I can go along with 18 for all of that, but I don't buy into going any younger. There are going to be countless examples of young people who are better qualified to vote than some older people, but I think there will always be more examples in the opposite direction. I wouldn't go along with lowering voting to 16 unless the responsibility factors went with it. Even then I think it would be a bad idea.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by october
My friend and I talk politics a lot at work. We are both far to the right; in the last election I voted for Howard Phillips of the constitution party and he voted for Pat Buchanan.

We believe that anyone going to vote in a presidential election or one for the US Senate or House should have to take a 5-10 question test on their candidate to be allowed to vote. There are far too many unknowledgable voters out there cancelling out our well thought out votes. It seems like most of them go to the left too, since the left appeals to younger people generally.
-october-

I couldn't find the stats on it, but I am quite sure that those with a college degree are more likely to vote Democrat while those with only a high school education or less are likely to vote Republican.

The bottom line is that people who aren't interested in politics rarely if ever vote. There is no such problem as you described with young, unknowledgable people "cancelling out your well thought out votes."

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz


I couldn't find the stats on it, but I am quite sure that those with a college degree are more likely to vote Democrat while those with only a high school education or less are likely to vote Republican.

As I am reading this, everyone is more likely to vote Democratic. While this would make several people on this thread very happy, I don't think it is what you intended to say. Please clarify if possible.