Should you need to be pass a credit check in order to vote?

[Askthepizzaguy]

It doesn't go far enough.

You should also have an IQ of 130 or higher, be able to run 100 metres in under 12 seconds, and know how to properly milk a goat.

You should also place an upper limit on the IQ, you don't want those egghead liberals who went to university to start having a say in things. Bad enough they rule science with an iron fist that they created in a lab, we don't need them running the country. Plus, they're already uppity enough with their booksmarts, you start letting them vote and pretty soon they'll want to reform something, like they know better than the founding fathers. As if! Slavery all the way, baby.

Also, does being able to properly milk a goat count if you practiced... unintentionally?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I dont know about the rest of you, but I think its better to be inclusive than to exclude. Its a bad thing when someone who shouldnt be allowed to vote does anyway, but Id prefer having that to having eligible people turned away at the voting place because of technicalities.

 

[G-Max]

I agree that universal suffrage is a horrible idea, but credit rating is a stupid metric on which to base a person's voting competence. My credit's probably in the crapper, but I'm far more qualified to make political decisions than 99.999% of the American voting public. I say we just administer a written test like we do for immigrants who are trying to get their citizenship. It would have questions like "In the U.S. Constitution, bounties on wanted people are referred to as which of the following? 1) bills of attainder, 2) bills of credit, 3) letters of marque and reprisal, or 4) ex post facto laws" and "Which of the following rights is NOT protected by the Fifth Amendment? 1) freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, 2) the right to a trial by jury, 3) freedom from self-incrimination, or 4) just compensation for the use of eminent domain"

The actual questions aren't important, so long as knowing the answers would require a VERY thorough understanding of the Constitution. That would definitely help weed out the idiots like these:


Link to video.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

That's dangerously close to disenfranchisement. Whose to say their opinions arent as valid. Why should you need to fully understand what some men wrote a couple hundred years ago in able to voice your opinion on which politic person is the best leader?

 

[Traitorfish]

Congratulations, G-Max, you've reached the point at which I'm sincerely unable to tell if you're taking the piss.

 

[G-Max]

That's dangerously close to disenfranchisement. Whose to say their opinions arent as valid.

If your "opinion" is that Obama will give you "Obama money" from his "stash", then your opinion is invalid. Period.

Why should you need to fully understand what some men wrote a couple hundred years ago

Because "what some men wrote a couple hundred years ago" happens to be the supreme law of the land, and those who haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with the supreme law of the land most certainly haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with the issues... especially if they want to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

in able to voice your opinion on which politic person is the best leader?

Hey, I'm not exactly advocating that we ban free speech. You can still voice your opinion. I'm just saying, if you think that the War on Drugs is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause, then you should keep that belief to your Youtube channel, and not bring it anywhere near the voting booth.

 

[Traitorfish]

You should really just skip to the chase and demand to be appointed Lord Protector.

 

[Cutlass]

I agree that universal suffrage is a horrible idea, but credit rating is a stupid metric on which to base a person's voting competence. My credit's probably in the crapper, but I'm far more qualified to make political decisions than 99.999% of the American voting public. I say we just administer a written test like we do for immigrants who are trying to get their citizenship. It would have questions like "In the U.S. Constitution, bounties on wanted people are referred to as which of the following? 1) bills of attainder, 2) bills of credit, 3) letters of marque and reprisal, or 4) ex post facto laws" and "Which of the following rights is NOT protected by the Fifth Amendment? 1) freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, 2) the right to a trial by jury, 3) freedom from self-incrimination, or 4) just compensation for the use of eminent domain"

The actual questions aren't important, so long as knowing the answers would require a VERY thorough understanding of the Constitution. That would definitely help weed out the idiots like these:


Link to video.

So exterminate all self determination from the populace and have dictators rule. Got it

 

[G-Max]

You should really just skip to the chase and demand to be appointed Lord Protector.

Nah... the Lord Protector is always the first guy they send off to the guillotine. I'd rather be more of a Grand Moff Tarkin or Greven il-Vec kind of guy.

So exterminate all self determination from the populace and have dictators rule. Got it

There's a huge difference between "dictators" and "republics in which having a clue is a prerequisite for being allowed to vote". I can explain it using small words and pop-up pictures, if you'd like.

 

[Traitorfish]

There's a huge difference between "dictators" and "republics in which having a clue is a prerequisite for being allowed to vote". I can explain it using small words and pop-up pictures, if you'd like.

Sure- it only takes one noose to resolve the problem of a dictatorship, but you find yourself going through hundreds of the buggers to resolve the problem of oligar- I'm sorry, "clued-in republicanism".

 

[G-Max]

Or you can put the noose away, pick up a copy of The Federalist Papers, pass the test, and become one of the "clued-in".

I don't see what's so hard about that. Next thing you know, you'll be raising a fuss over laws requiring voters to provide photo ID

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That's dangerously close to disenfranchisement. Whose to say their opinions arent as valid. Why should you need to fully understand what some men wrote a couple hundred years ago in able to voice your opinion on which politic person is the best leader?

The thing is, Aimee, we in Canada don't worship the Fathers of Confederation the way a lot of Americans seem to worship their Founding Fathers. We know that Sir John A. and the others were largely motivated by money. The last Father of Confederation was Joey Smallwood, and while I'm not really up on what his interests and motivations were, I'm also not aware that anybody regards him with any sort of worshipful attitude.

That said, it would be a good idea if Canadian voters were aware of what's in our own Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not for the sake of learning history, but to protect ourselves and know when and where we can tell Harper and his minions to go jump in the nearest tar sands tailing pond and take a huge drink.

If your "opinion" is that Obama will give you "Obama money" from his "stash", then your opinion is invalid. Period.

What does this mean? I don't get the reference.

especially if they want to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

Several areas upriver from me had to tell people not to drink dihydrogen monoxide a few weeks ago, after an oil spill. Thank goodness they got the spill "mostly" contained before it got as far as Red Deer proper. I still watch the river suspiciously whenever I'm near it, and am on the lookout for any suspicious odors coming from the dihydrogen monoxide that comes out of my taps. BTW, it's the educated folk who should be aware that we're just talking about WATER. The people who haven't taken a single chemistry class are the people who are also not that likely to have kept up with the daily news. But that doesn't mean they still don't have definite opinions on what their lives are like, what the problems are, and what they want done about them.

I don't see what's so hard about that. Next thing you know, you'll be raising a fuss over laws requiring voters to provide photo ID

If one of the rules involved in getting a photo ID is to provide a permanent address and you happen to be homeless, good luck with getting that ID!

 

[Traitorfish]

Or you can put the noose away, pick up a copy of The Federalist Papers, pass the test, and become one of the "clued-in".

I don't see what's so hard about that. Next thing you know, you'll be raising a fuss over laws requiring voters to provide photo ID

The Federalist Papers? Now you have to be taking the piss.

 

[Flying Pig]

Sure- it only takes one noose to resolve the problem of a dictatorship, but you find yourself going through hundreds of the buggers to resolve the problem of oligar- I'm sorry, "clued-in republicanism".

TF is right. If we claim to have a government 'of the people, for the people' we must have it represent all ofthe people.

 

[Crezth]

Or you can put the noose away, pick up a copy of The Federalist Papers, pass the test, and become one of the "clued-in".

I don't see what's so hard about that. Next thing you know, you'll be raising a fuss over laws requiring voters to provide photo ID

Haha, yeah! Let's not forget these are the same pro-franchise morons who said states can't stop blacks from voting. State's rights forever!

 

[Traitorfish]

And nor is that mere hyperbole, given that what G-Max proposes, discriminating as it does in favour of the educated and the English-fluent, would in practice disenfranchise black and Hispanic Americans in huge numbers and to a highly disproportionate extent.

 

[Antilogic]

In response to the OP: this idea is moronic and should be condemned as the voter suppression tactic it is.

In regards to the recent discussion: why just one set of documents by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay? Has literally no political theorist surpassed these three?

 

[Lone Wolf]

I propose better questions on Constitutional knowledge. What's wrong with questions like "What is the fourth word of Article 1, section 2?" And no looking it up, anyone cheating is disqualified forever, we don't want cheater scum electing our leaders

 

[Yeekim]

It's in the article linked in the OP. They claim to be "preventing stolen elections". While in actuality they are collaborating in stealing elections.

Yeah, I read the OP twice, but I still could not understand. "Stolen" by whom? What the hell should a credit report have to do with one's right to vote, i.e. whether or not one is a citizen or not?

This is so blatantly absurd I am still feeling like I'm missing something.

 

[Lone Wolf]

If you have a credit card rating at all, then you definitely exist and is not a fictive non-existent person, thus limiting the potential for machinations. Besides that, the scum with low credit card rating are prone to following leftist radicals who want to destroy our Republic