This was a question on a standardized test. What do you guys think and why?
The more I hear people wanting to test for voter qualifications, the more I worry that fascism is inches away. We need to flip the script. Make voting mandatory: when you hit 18, you register to vote and pay a fine for failing to register and/or vote. Australia does this. In return you have to want not to vote. "None of the above" costs money. If you don't like the candidates, write yourself in. Restricting who can vote more than judges who should be a citizen: it makes the judge more powerful. It's a tool to wield more power. We should probably bring back mandatory national service while we're at it. A nation needs a shared experience of its goals -- not just military ones, either. We don't need to make up wars to give everyone a shared experience. We have enough under-educated children, enough stuff to fix. Heck, it could simply be a process of "Bob knows how to build computers and Jane knows how to drive trucks. Jane will teach mornings and Bob will teach afternoons. Next week, Sam teaches cooking from scratch and everyone works at the soup kitchen each evening -- they need to fix the boiler there, too."
It is utterly stupid. Firstly, nobody has ever became nice by force. There are no decent people to vote for. My country's population 55% are left leaning, but we have never had leftist party since USSR fell. Your nationalistic teachers never tell who killed millions of jews, deported millions of natives and recolonized the land, they simply say "communism" or "socialism". Those are two terms derogated to synonyms. I am aware that in The land of the Free you have only two parties at all - what on earth a choice is that? Take a look at Russia, Belarus. The voting there is for idiots who still think that they count. No electorate matters there, the elections are clearly rigged, just like in most of Africa. I do not vote since there is nobody who represents my values and there will never be anybody who represents all my values, who listens my problems and who cares enough. I do not want to participate in your rigged elections. I despise your fascist regime and fascist ideas.
Uhh... okay. I honestly have no idea how to respond to that. I hope you feel better after all that ranting. Would you like a beer? You must not be the only person wanting to explode at me. You got three dots so far.
I honestly have no idea how many dots I have. I use that zen setting thing and like to be oblivious to this election. I just find your point of view offensive. Firstly it is immoral to exclude somebody from elections because he does not have highschool diploma - we all live in the same pot and we all should be equal part of the soup. If we even further ban electorate - immigrants, sex offenders, people who use instagram, far leftists, far rightists, muslims, blacks - the election becomes pointless elite gathering. We all should be equal and nobody should float on top. Those who want to get to the power and equally those who want to help people will find how to promote themselves. Protip: good ideas do not need advertisements, they are spoken about. On the other hand, if there are nobody who represents ANY of my values at all, I am not exaggerating, my country does not have any party that even thinks of leaning left, who should I vote for? Why should I waste my time, energy and life to go and elect "the lesser evil" who will continue his fascist oppression and command everybody when and how to vote, how to think and who to hate? "You are scum because you do not vote" is invalid. I cannot find the source to prove, but in some European countries if notable part of population boycotts or ignores the elections, it is considered civil disobedience and new government can't be formed. Heck, the Belgians lived 591 days without government! If you ran a government, oh you would have a hard time running it. We should free and liberate people, make lives easier, take care of the things what people do not want to do every day, like fighting in wars, repairing roads, collect their own wheat every day, put in sewer system and worry if they will not freeze in winter or if they will be saved in spring floods. Forcing yourself on others is wrong. If you have your representative and think that he knows better what you want, how to care for you, how make your life easier - go on and vote. Forcing me to vote for your idea? I do not want to be responsible for somebody I do not know, if I doubt his good intentions, if I know that he had acted against my ideals and values. As Boris Yeltsin supposedly said, "You can build a throne with bayonets, but you can't sit on it long." /Yet I am only some random creep on the internet who does not like oppression, dictatorship and fascism you propagate/
Let's be clear: I am not the person promoting a high school diploma requirement. Stagnant_Pig proposed the question, and did not even assert agreement with it. I am opposed to the high school requirement. Please check which chain you are following when you reply. Second of all, why do you need there to be a party for you to vote for someone? We vote for individuals. Sure, we get some weird examples such as H. Ross Perot, who ran with only the vaguest of party affiliations. I suppose Bored Billionaire Party wasn't all that catchy, but it wasn't Democrat or Republican. I spoke against fascism and you accuse me of it. You accuse me of my opponent's stance and built a straw man smorgasbord. Please review. Please check to whom you reply.
Hey Saldejums, If you are indeed from Belarus, I heard that it is terrible there from a recent migrant to Canada. I asked her why she wanted to leave Belarus and she had a long list of awfulness. She and her husband were both doctors in Belarus and she said they were paid very little and treated badly, she said that you have elections but IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY. She waited 8 years to immigrate and then had great difficulty becoming a doctor in Canada. It's very hard for her here, but she feels more free. I understand very little about Belarus, but I have no doubt that it is as you say: I do not vote since there is nobody who represents my values and there will never be anybody who represents all my values, who listens my problems and who cares enough
This is how you get even more ignorant votes. People will just do it because they have to, and a lot of people will probably pick one at random (not caring about politics). Fuck requiring everyone to teach. Some people are awful teachers. And making it mandatory will result in people not caring about teaching. Have you ever been taught by someone who doesn't want to be there (regardless of how well they know the topic)? It sucks. These suggestions would make me want to move out of the country more than I already do.We need to flip the script. Make voting mandatory: when you hit 18, you register to vote and pay a fine for failing to register and/or vote.
"Bob knows how to build computers and Jane knows how to drive trucks. Jane will teach mornings and Bob will teach afternoons. Next week, Sam teaches cooking from scratch and everyone works at the soup kitchen each evening -- they need to fix the boiler there, too."
Arguably, this prevents political extremism, causing all of the major parties to the centre. Pushing more voters to vote prevents political influence by lobby groups.This is how you get even more ignorant votes. People will just do it because they have to, and a lot of people will probably pick one at random (not caring about politics).
While this would prevent lobby influence, if we have (hypothetically) a large population of uneducated people with the economic understanding of a twelve-year-old, then we basically have a group of twelve-year-olds voting. This would probably only be a problem in highly impoverished areas but a problem, none the less. It could easily be mitigated by policies, but that would clash with the whole "everyone votes" idea.
I think I might have to agree with you slightly. However, on the other hand you have a large group of informed youth that very rarely vote. In Australia only 40% of (relatively informed) youth voted, despite it being compulsory. In some cases, you actually need to give a people a kick in the backside, people that are actually informed but might be sitting in the political centre, or just unhappy with all major parties, to get them to vote.
Ah, so your priority is that you don't like the voting results of your fellow citizens. We need to address their ignorance (as well as your distaste for it... and mine) instead of declaring them unworthy of their franchise. We have let the few create the knowledge that leads to votes. At one time this was necessary: distribution of information cost money, so those with money could control the information. Now those with money control the spin of information using the older psychological tools along with newer technological tools. We need to teach people how propaganda works. Fear of the ill-educated does not mean they can be repressed -- that treats the problem as inherent instead of a result. It's the obligation of those that "get it" to get more of them to get their own addiction to valid information. Those that can teach, should teach and should get the chance to do it. Sure, many people do not want to teach or are bad teachers. It was an example. I guess you should ask yourself: if you want to leave so bad, where will you go that will accept you and won't have the same problem? Frankly, the Information Age has flushed a lot of dumb people out of the bushes and into the chat rooms. They aren't just an American problem: they are a density problem.
Not so. I'm happy with either choice, as long as the person voting is educated about what they are voting for. Just as I don't mind someone disagreeing on any topic, provided they know why they are disagreeing and have a thought process for it. Ignorant voting is no better than just choosing randomly. I don't think anyone is unworthy. But you can't really vote or decide what you prefer if you don't know what you are voting for. Simple as that. You miss the point. The point is that I don't want to be forced to do shit against my will. As it stands, I live in a free country, and I'd like to keep it that way. As it stands, I don't relate to people where I currently am at all. I don't like the same food, the same entertainment, the same day-to-day things, etc. Honestly, I'd just like to go somewhere pretty much completely different. As for the "intelligence" problem, that's unfortunately something I have to live with. It's obvious that it's a world-wide problem, not just a specific country. I'm just saying mandatory teaching isn't the way to go about fixing it.Ah, so your priority is that you don't like the voting results of your fellow citizens.
instead of declaring them unworthy of their franchise.
Fear of the ill-educated does not mean they can be repressed -- that treats the problem as inherent instead of a result. It's the obligation of those that "get it" to get more of them to get their own addiction to valid information. Those that can teach, should teach and should get the chance to do it.
Sure, many people do not want to teach or are bad teachers. It was an example.
I guess you should ask yourself: if you want to leave so bad, where will you go that will accept you and won't have the same problem? Frankly, the Information Age has flushed a lot of dumb people out of the bushes and into the chat rooms. They aren't just an American problem: they are a density problem.
I think there's value in an educated vote. I don't think high school is where that education comes from. There are plenty of "educated" people that make completely ignorant decisions when they vote. How about before we start thinking about how to restrict people's right to vote, we focus on getting them to want to express it?
Good question, you should ask Quinton Tarintino, George Eastman, Peter Jackson, Richard Pryor, Peter Jennings and George Bernard Shaw. They never graduated High School. A diploma doesn't equate to intellect. Abraham Lincoln didn't have a diploma, he essentially taught himself after a certain point. Growing up on a farm he needed to be home to work and couldn't attend school. Imagine denying him the right to vote because he didn't have a "diploma." There are countless examples, I'm sure.
This really does bring up some great points, but one of the main ones that has yet to be stated is that a fundamental value of democracy is that every adult citizen has the RIGHT to vote and with out that you are infringing on the fundamental core of democracy.
No, but I think there should be something similar. Preferably a political test. To show that you understand basic politics, what you are voting for, what the people you are voting for are supposed to be doing, understand what the arguments of each viewpoint are, etc. Doesn't need to be long, just long/specific enough to ensure the voter understands what they are voting for, rather than just voting by party or whatever.
In some demographics, notably poor racial minorities in the south, people are more likely to be imprisoned than finish school. Should they be disenfranchised? Do you think it's not possible for someone to know what's in their own best interest if they have not graduated?
Well, I think this is a very tricky and touchy subject. You're gonna have people screaming at you saying, but FREEDOM, MURICA, LAND OF DA BRAVE! if you want to make it say required voting or having to have a diploma to vote. If you go the opposite way and say, nobody has to vote! You get what we have now, truthfully shitty people in power but them being re-elected over and over (I'm looking at you McConnell!) Either way you go, its gonna be shit. I personally think anyone should be able to vote, they should just have to take a "political test" beforehand making sure they don't just vote because "Obama is so hawt, I'm looking at you 18 year old college girls!" I think that it would make sure the right people get in office more. My 2 cents
I am going to react on you underlying opinion/question as I understand it. If I am not mistaken the reason for this question is that you think there are people who should not be allowed to vote. Am I correct? I often think that the world is infested with idiots. For example, in the Netherlands we have the PVV. This stands for "Partij van de Vrijheid" or "Party for Freedom". Geert Wilders is the party leader, you might have heard of him. I am no fan of this party as it employs populist tactics and quite frankly undermines the foundation of this country. The spear points are simple: - Muslims are evil and are to blame for everything - If it cannot be pinned on muslims, the EU is at fault (affectionately referred to as Brussels) - Also, East-Europeans will come and take all our jobs Sounds stupid? I agree and I think that the people voting for the PVV are idiots. Where is this going you ask? Well, I (and others with me) think that those who vote for this party cannot be other than idiots. Populistic crap, worth nothing. However, it is about 10% of the voting population who voted for the PVV in the last election. Strange? Not really. Irritating? Hell yeah. The problem however is that I cannot judge these people. They might think that those voting for another party are idiots in their own right. It is all about opinions and while there are better researched opinions, there is no reason why people cannot arrive at the conclusion that they agree with (in my opinion) stupid ideas. Testing or otherwise trying to asses the political knowledge of these people will not do the situation any good as this will let them feel excluded from society as a whole. Excluding large portions of society will have a negative influence on society (as seen multiple times in history). Also, as others have said, it should not be required to first prove you know the basics of politics. It undermines the basic principles of democracy. (just like it is weird you have to register to vote, but that is for another time). All in all, I think that it is better to tolerate this while it lasts and try to educate people in schools about the basics of politics. It is the best possible thing to do.