That is an assumption with no basis of fact.
In fact, it could be deemed biased and elitist in itself.
Who should be allowed to vote?
- Thread starter ansutherland
- Start date
That is an assumption with no basis of fact.
In fact, it could be deemed biased and elitist in itself.
I think when it comes to something like voting our rights and freedoms are paramount. The best solution may be to allow a person to vote or not to vote as he/she chooses. It should be a right/privilege - not a compulsion. :smile:
If there are a lot of uninformed, stupid people in the country, they should be allowed to have a representative, too. It would be unfair to have informed, intelligent people doing all of the voting. I think age and citizenship should be the only qualifications.
First off, most people do not know what is going on. Pick a topic, any topic, political that is, and find out what the average joe knows about it. They know nothing. The very fact that news papers are written at a grade 7 level is indicative of this fact, especially considering most people look no further that the newspaper for their political info.
I think it interesting that in the US, Fox News it the most watched news program. With this in mind, do you really think that the watchers of said news really know what is going on? If you think Glenn Beck is on to something, how can you be trusted to cast a vote. If you think Sara Palin is fit for the role of VP, how can you be trusted to vote? If you think GW Bush was a good president, how can you be trusted to vote. Generally speaking, if you think any of those things, you cannot be trusted to vote because you have not done your homework. If you have not done your homework, you cannot vote.
Why is it that driving a car requires such strict testing, yet it's deemed that at 18 you know enough to make an informed decision?
I think it interesting that in the US, Fox News it the most watched news program. With this in mind, do you really think that the watchers of said news really know what is going on? If you think Glenn Beck is on to something, how can you be trusted to cast a vote. If you think Sara Palin is fit for the role of VP, how can you be trusted to vote? If you think GW Bush was a good president, how can you be trusted to vote. Generally speaking, if you think any of those things, you cannot be trusted to vote because you have not done your homework. If you have not done your homework, you cannot vote.
Why is it that driving a car requires such strict testing, yet it's deemed that at 18 you know enough to make an informed decision?
I use those names only for illustrative purposes. Would you, or would you not agree that those in support of Mrs. Palin are either gravely misinformed of have some alterior motives? Do you think that Canadian voters are above the intellect of the average American? If Canadians voters are in fact that much smarter, then I concede your point, that Palin and GWB are irrelevent for our discussion. If Canadian voters are so much smarter, then I will dig up some Canadian content.
IF Sarah Palin really mattered to Canadian politics, I would suggest they who voted for her did so because they were free to do so. Is that your problem? Freedom of choice?
Unfortunately such guidelines would limit the vote to about 5% of the population. For the most part only Social Studies teachers would be allowed to vote.
Freedom of choice is not a problem as it is much like freedom of thought. One should be free to support whomever they wish, so long as it is not to the detriment of society. Ergo, a vote for Mrs. Palin is to the detriment of society.
Hey! I'm a Social Studies teacher! I like it!
Despite my (FAILED) attempt at a fun troll below..............an age requirement, along with citizenship, can be the only restrictions on voting.
18 is good.
If you really believed in freedom of choice the way that you framed it, we should see no harm in an openly neo nazi candidate running for a political position. And if it be true that this individual were to win, then it must be that those who voted for him must be smarter that I thought?
You want to remove the right to vote from those who are not given a proper education? That would make taking control of the country very easy wouldn't it? It would also serve well in making sure that only the needs of the elite are taken into consideration in government. Which would be a pretty popular choice for those who run it. It sounds like a brilliant idea if you're a politician or rich enough to ensure that your offspring never fall through the educational cracks.
Hey Einstein, go back to playing in the sandbox. There is no one person alive who should be deciding who should or shouldn't vote. Only an idiot would compare it to driving a car. If you screw up driving a car you can kill half a dozen people, if you "screw up" voting a candidate gets one vote more or less than he should. There is another political meat ball on this forum - you and he should get together and see what other bright ideas you can contrive between the two of you. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Last edited:
If you believe in democracy.....or even more definitively, if you believe in the intelligence and decency of the people (a prerequisite of believing in democracy) then of course it is OK for an openly neo Nazi member to run for political position. If not, then the entire debate is moot, because we are not discussing democracy in the first place.
BTW, voter qualification tests exactly as you describe have been used before......back in the Bad Old Days in the southern USA.....to prevent Afro-Americans from registering to vote.
NOT a good idea.
I find it uniquely amusing that you are bringing up neo-nazism as an excuse to preclude people from voting for not being in an 'elite' class as defined by you.
I think you said it better than I could and perhaps even more politely (if that's possible) too. :smile:
You really do have some attitude! Well, it's good that you have at least argued my specific points and not just gone off on a rant with no apparent purpose other than to start a fight.
We have in this country a system with major incentives for those who lie. Because the electorate does not know what is going one and is not properly educated, they are unable to discern a realistic proposal from that of a lie. They cannot tell the difference often times from a person genuinely wishing to do good, and that of a pure charlatan. When the vote of the ignorant count for the same as the votes of those who know better, and the ignorant are in the vast majority, then we have a problem.
Now to those that are taking my thesis and implying that I am an elitist or that such a society is for elitists, you are employing nothing more that argumentum ad consequentum. Just because you use the word elitest does not make it so and so what if it did, as long as we were better off for it. Elitist by the way is a relative term. Just because you are not ignorant does not make you an elitist though you may be viewed as such by those who know far less.
Just take a look around at some of the dumb ideas that we as a society have debated and ask yourself if it would have been a problem under the sort of system I am proposing? Would gay marriage have been such a big deal? How about global warming? Legalizing pot? The HST? For that matter, what about the GST, which is a VAT of sorts. Mulroney initiates it, everyone hates it, Chretien gets elected with the promise of removing it and lies (which he has great incentive to do because our system encourages it), and in the end, the GST still exists.
Ah... so no one who is educated ever buys into hollow campaign promises. Proof?
I'd like to add... a lesson in the definition of democracy, so that everyone has enough of an understanding of politics to participate...
democracy - 5 reference results
.slL{ cursorointer; } What is Democracy?
democracy
democracy [Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on theequality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints beimposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.
I'd like to add... a lesson in the definition of democracy, so that everyone has enough of an understanding of politics to participate...
.slL{ cursor
ointer; } What is Democracy?democracy
democracy [Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on theequality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints beimposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.
lying doesn't just 'fool' the ignorant and uneducated, it fools everyone 'for a while', perhaps we should
not allow those who have lied to get elected, to run in the next election, as punishment, oh no that
wouldn't work, there wouldn't be anyone left to run for office.
not allow those who have lied to get elected, to run in the next election, as punishment, oh no that
wouldn't work, there wouldn't be anyone left to run for office.