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

[Whiskey Priest]

Here is my list of qualifications for voting. some may call it arbitrary, but I will decide what is arbitrary .

1. If your car has neon lights under it or you have a neon border on your license plate you are forbidden from voting. (They should also be forbidden from buying gas, but then these losers would probably just push their precious little cars around)

2. You have to have read two books (OVer 200 pages) the year you wish to vote. To prove you have read the books you will have to do a book report, just like in elementary school.

3. People wearing Wrestling t-shirts or NASCAR t-shirts will be given a different ballot. They will be asked to vote on their favourite wrestler or NASCAR driver. The winners will be considered the best by the United States government. They will also receive a trophy or something. I don't think that the people in NASCAR or wrestling t-shirts would object (or notice for that matter).

4. Albertans are frobidden from voting. Thier votes don't matter anyway. (just kidding)

5. If you call into a sports radio show, you are forbidden from voting for any municiple government (no public money for stadiums!)

6. If you watch more then ten hours a week of E! you cannot vote. This rule excludes Wild On (else no male could vote )

7. If you cheer at the screen in a movie theatre, banned.

8. People who prefer Apolotyn to CivFanatics.

10. Television Psychics and their repeat customers, banned.

11. Celebrities, banned (Who really cares what these pampered ego maniacs think)

Ahh. I love a good rant.

 

[joespaniel]

Good one, WP!

I especially liked #3.

 

[allan]

"However, there is another way to look at this. Instead of asking does my vote count, maybe we should instead ask, what if I didn't have a vote? I think about those individuals who survived the tanks at Tiananmen Square, and those that didn't (unlike a few spearmen and horsemen I've seen) and have concluded what really counts is the fact I have a vote."

Hmmm, not so sure about this. I can envision a Tianmen-type incident occuring even in a country where people can vote. An "old China hand" I knew actually argued with me once that in the minds of most ordinary, working-class Chinese people, the government's actions were justified.... The culture is a bit different there, and most people see a big threat to the well-being of society when demonstrators protest so strongly against the "People's" government. Perhaps it is the Confucian ethic at work there. But on second thought, maybe we're not always so different--a majority of people in the US probably didn't mind that the police clubbed and beat protesters against the Vietnam War as often as they did. This is not so much an issue of the presence of democracy, but how much power is vested in that democratic government. Theoretically, a democracy's electorate can choose a repressive despotic type of government, with no limits, if it wanted to, if paranoia or hate or simply fear takes over the majority. Mob rule is very seldom if ever a good thing. A remedy to that is having strict limits to what the government can do, i.e. a Constitution--so long as it is followed.

But my question wasn't dealing with that, but with WHO actually runs things around here. I hate to say it, but only the very naive can claim that "the people" (meaning ALL of us) do. It is very much an insider's game these days, run mainly by politically-connected big businessmen and lobbyists. (Yes, I've always said that the left were correct in many of their diagnoses, including this very one--I only disagree with their proposed "solutions".) Our congressmen do not serve us, or represent us--and I don't care which party you're talking about. They'll throw some pork scraps our way to keep us appeased, but their boss AIN'T us.... There may be an odd one now and then who tries to serve the people and ignore the big players, but often their careers don't last long--because the whole system will work against them, to protect itself. They'll never get a damned thing done....

This is probably all for another thread, and maybe I'll start it. Technically we are a republican democracy, but in spirit? Hardly. It is corrupted to the point where I often question how that term "democracy" can apply to us anymore. And yes, I think through either our lack of vigilance or our sheer gullibility, we have brought quite a bit of this on ourselves--well, we ALLOWED it to evolve into this, anyway. I just wonder if we'll ever be able to undo it. I wonder if enough people will ever care enough or be brave enough to try....

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
On the topic of voting, I think here in the US there should be a holiday designated just for voting. It would tremendously increase voter turnout. Or at least hold election days on Saturdays or Sundays. Right now voting days are during the week, and lots of people don't vote because they have to work.

Actually, by law your employer can't keep you from voting. Also, polls are generally open long enough that most people's shifts do not cover the entire period. Add to that absentee ballots, and there shouldn't be anyone under the current system who is unable to vote. If you have to get up a little earlier in the mornig, or miss the first few minutes of wheel of fortune, that is your price for voting.

I agree with Allan regarding citizenship and immigration papers. Citizenship and voting should be in the language of the land. I think having a strong incentive to learn the language of a country will do more for protecting peoples' rights than allowing them to ignore the local language. Without some knowledge of the local language immigrants are at the mercy of whoever translates the political statements for them. I understand the arguement for facilitating voting to everyone, but I think it is outweighed by a responsibility to ensure that people have the ability to get political information without filters if they choose.

As far as WP's voting restrictions go: Do you really think any of those people vote as it is?

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by Sixchan
A few weeks back there was a thread on citizenship tests where it was suggested that even natives to a country should have to take one. Also, some (including me) thought that if you didn't pass the citizenship test you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Now there is one question that I really would like to see answered: will GWB pass such a citizenship test?

I reckon the trouble will start at question 1: Who is currently the president?

 

[Zwelgje]

I don't think a citizenship test should be necessary to vote. All citizens should be able to vote but I do think it would be a good idea to have a test for all people that want to become a citizen. When you know how a country is organized and what rights and duties you have it will be much better to get used to living in that country.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Whiskey Priest
If you call into a sports radio show, you are forbidden from voting for any municiple government (no public money for stadiums!)

...and people who can't spell "municipal" shouldn't be allowed to vote in municipal elections.

I would LIKE to have a basic test to vote, although I'm not sure I actually would impose them if I had the power to, for all the reasons said above. I've already posted what this test should be elsewhere, and I don't think it would be terribly hard for a citizenship court or something to construct one.

But why? Why want a test? Because I think voting is a right, but INFORMED voting is the duty. As a political hack, I have met too many voters who have little clue as to why they're making the decisions they are, or who are actually voting for people for one reason when even a cursory study of that candidate's record or the system of government would show that the desired result is not likely or even possible. In Canada, voters often do not even know which level of government is responsible for what, so voters might not just be ignorant about who they are voting for, they might also be ignorant about where they are electing them TO.

Most elections are decided by these 5%-10% of uninformed voters who get "pulled" by hacks like me; these are the ones who decide the margin in the tight races that decide the balance of power in Congresses or Parliaments. The remaining 90-odd % who turn out are, for the most part, well informed or full of genuine common sense. But the paradox of the system is that it is the indifferent who decide elections, not the regular voters, and ideas to reduce that indifference are at least a step forward towards a better democracy.

R.III

 

[Karnokki]

...and people who can't spell "municipal" shouldn't be allowed to vote in municipal elections.

Touche'

 

[Sixchan]

I don't think a citizenship test should be necessary to vote. All citizens should be able to vote but I do think it would be a good idea to have a test for all people that want to become a citizen. When you know how a country is organized and what rights and duties you have it will be much better to get used to living in that country.

But the problem is whether where you were born should be an automatic 'A' in a citizenship test. If immigrants have to take a citizenship test, why shouldn't natives?

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by Sixchan
But the problem is whether where you were born should be an automatic 'A' in a citizenship test. If immigrants have to take a citizenship test, why shouldn't natives?

A citizenship test for natives, isn't that what is commonly known as education? Thus if the citizens aren't well enough informed about constitution andsoforth the educational system isn't working good enough and this is the responsibility of the government and not the people.

 

[joespaniel]

English is the "official" language of the United States, but over one hundered other languages are spoken here by significant groups of citizens.

Saying someone could "pervert" the message in translation is a cop-out. So is a "citizenship test".

The voters are not the problem.

Every election cycle, the two major parties cough up their candidates that are the most presentable in the media's eye, with the most loyalty to the party and its financial backers. Not the most qualified for the job.

Does anyone here really think George Bush or Al Gore are true leaders of men? Pfft!

The voters have to take back the power, and force these fools to give us some real candidates. Exactly how, I dont know.

 

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by joespaniel
English is the "official" language of the United States, but over one hundered other languages are spoken here by significant groups of citizens.

Actually, this is NO official language of the United States. "Official," perhaps. But no truly capital-O Official Language. No one should be required to speak English in order to vote or to be a citizen.

 

[Maj]

Most elections are decided by these 5%-10% of uninformed voters who get "pulled" by hacks like me; these are the ones who decide the margin in the tight races that decide the balance of power in Congresses or Parliaments. The remaining 90-odd % who turn out are, for the most part, well informed or full of genuine common sense. But the paradox of the system is that it is the indifferent who decide elections, not the regular voters, and ideas to reduce that indifference are at least a step forward towards a better democracy.

Ninety percent? I didn't think it was that high. If you can back that claim up you've made my week!

I voted last year in the national elections up here in Canada. I feel as though I threw away my vote. Not one of the five major parties here is any good. You get an indication as to how bleak things are when the government currently in power can display such arrogance as to defend its own corruption with statements that amount to "That's our job". The sad truth is that there is no otherparty out there that would do any better.

Voting should be a duty. But so should honesty and integrity amongst politicians. That thought goes way beyond dreaming.

- Maj

 

[Magnus]

I believe that in some countries (Belgium comes to mind as one) you HAVE to vote, it is against the law to NOT vote in an election!

My stance on this whole debate is, if anyone that cares enough to want to come out and decide the fate of their country, they should be allowed to do so, whether they were lucky enough to be born there, or willling to go through the process of naturalization. Some may say an individual vote is meaningless, but it is something, otherwise nobody would bother voting.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Magnus
I believe that in some countries (Belgium comes to mind as one) you HAVE to vote, it is against the law to NOT vote in an election!

Belgium's national motto: "We're a democracy... or else!"

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Guynemer
No one should be required to speak English in order to vote or to be a citizen.

Why not? Multilingual is fine, but I'm not a big fan of Balkanizing. Belgium is a good example. Imagine if they'd just forced them Pseudo-frenchies to learn the same language they wouldn't have half the problems

Same with Canada I suppose...

 

[allan]

In some states, like Texas and California, there have been born citizens who speak Spanish as their first language, because these areas were once a part of Mexico. I can see then where there'd be some controversy about those states adopting English as their "official" language, as has been proposed on some ballots (can't remember if these passed or not).

Same with Native American languages, I suppose....

I think that knowledge of English is more a practical matter in the US than anything else. And obviously since we cannot reasonably be expected to translate every official paper there is into the hundreds of languages that may be spoken here (imagine the cost!), that this should be limited to English and MAYBE a few other major languages. It's not an issue I lose sleep over though.

 

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Greadius
Why not? Multilingual is fine, but I'm not a big fan of Balkanizing. Belgium is a good example. Imagine if they'd just forced them Pseudo-frenchies to learn the same language they wouldn't have half the problems

Same with Canada I suppose...

Don't bet on it man... another 50 years and we will have assimilated you guys. Resistance is futile!

OK. Gotta wake up now, gotta get that cup of coffee...

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by joespaniel

Saying someone could "pervert" the message in translation is a cop-out. So is a "citizenship test".

The voters are not the problem.

Every election cycle, the two major parties cough up their candidates that are the most presentable in the media's eye, with the most loyalty to the party and its financial backers. Not the most qualified for the job.

Does anyone here really think George Bush or Al Gore are true leaders of men? Pfft!

The voters have to take back the power, and force these fools to give us some real candidates. Exactly how, I dont know.

I would contend that perversion of a political message through translation is as much a danger as the perversion of a citizenship test. Personally I don't think either is much of a danger, but corruption does not favor only one side of this arguement in my view.

I agree that what we are presented with is laughable, but I think it is the voters that are the problem. We aren't demanding a better choice. The how is that a lot of people have to come together and be willing to beat their heads against a wall for a long time, and not become embittered by the experience. 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.

A tall order if ever there was one. The problem is human nature. We aren't willing to set aside our personal goals and views of 'the way it ought to be' long enough to support someone we respect but don't agree with. We begin to feel that ours is the only right way, and that if we need to make deals to get what we view as important, that's okay. Candidates change their views to get more votes and we let them. Take abortion, there are plenty of people who will vote based on this one issue. The politicians sense this and bend in the way they feel will best get them votes. They try to be all things to all people and we get suckered into believing it is possible.

We also don't value integrity. For crying out loud Gary Condit is running for office. I hope he doesn't win, but the fact that he can even consider running means that people are willing to look past his actions and lack thereof and vote for what he says is his platform. To me he is a prime example of someone who is only concerned about himself and has an extreme feeling of entitlement. Were I a Democrat in his area I would prefer just about anyone but him, even if some of their ideas differed from mine, so long as I thought they had integrity. In my mind, every vote he gets is a person who values their own particular issue or set of issues above integrity.

And that is why the voters are the problem. Not that a citizenship test or english forms is going to fix it.

 

[joespaniel]

We are in agreement.

I saw that sack of **** Condit on Larry King last night. What an @$$hole.

Sorry for the foul language, but I hate that guy.

Real political change probably wont happen until something really bad happens first. Its just the way it is with people.

English is the "official" language of the US by an act of Congress (in the 19th Century?). Thus it is taught in public schools. However, that "official" status does not apply to much else.

I was not suggesting we should have hundereds of translations when it comes to voting or anything else.

I was pointing out that American Democracy is supposed to be ALL-INCLUSIVE, regardless of race, religion, gender... etc.

I am not a champion of affirmative action or many other ideas associated with inclusion, but the Right to Vote was paid for in blood by my ancestors, and I would never want to tamper with it.

God Bless Gary Condit. phaser