| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yossarian
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 4165
Location: I'm somewhere where I don't know where I am.
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject: Should there be a minimum bar to be able to vote? |
 |
|
This is an interesting article about voting rights. It advocates passing a test in order to be registered to vote. What do y'all think?
Personally, I'm sick of things like gay marriage being the defining issues of a campaign.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/12/granderson.ignorant.vote/?hpt=T
| Quote: | Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- Should ignorant people be allowed to vote?
A provocative question for sure; however, I'm not bringing it up for shock value, but rather to give us all pause.
If I were to ask you to ingest an unknown medicine from someone who knew nothing about the medical field, you probably wouldn't do it. And I doubt many of us would feel comfortable as a shareholder in a company that asked people who knew nothing about business to hire its next CEO?
Yet we all know people who gleefully admit they know nothing about politics, don't have time to find out what the current issues are or even know how the government works, but go out and vote. Want to know why it seems Washington is run by a bunch of idiots? Blame this hiccup in our political system for starters. What's a solution? Weed out some of the ignorant by making people who want to vote first pass a test modeled on the one given to those who want to become citizens.
In an effort to win over ignorant voters, political campaigns are no longer targeting the movable middle as much as the easily misled. Instead of intelligent debates about important topics such as health care reform and cash-strapped states, we have an exchange of easy to remember catchphrases such as "Obamacare" and "War on Unions" -- all in the race to pander to people who can't explain what Congress does.
Or have a firm grasp of how tax dollars are spent.
In a recent CNN poll, more than a third of the people questioned wanted to see cuts in military spending, which is a good debate to have. The problem is the poll also revealed most Americans think the military takes up 30 percent of the budget when in reality it's 19 percent. If we don't know how much money is being spent, how can we intelligently say it's too much? And what to make of the 20 percent of folks polled who believe public broadcasting represents 10 percent of the budget, when it's more like a 10th of 1 percent?
I'm not suggesting someone needs to be a Rhodes scholar to vote.
But voters should at least be able to name the three branches of government. Voters should understand what a "trade deficit" is and how laws are made.
Before getting all bent out of shape by my assertion that you or someone you love is ignorant, please know I am not referring to the dictionary's first definition of the word, which typically means an uneducated or unsophisticated person. I am operating with the second usage, defined as a lack of knowledge in a specific area.
No one is omniscient; we're all ignorant about something.
I know close to nothing about the inner workings of my car, and so I come to my mechanic, ignorant -- but not stupid. As this relates to voting, if people don't know much about current government and politics, they too are ignorant, not necessarily stupid. The difference is that naively paying too much for repairs on a car is not nearly as damaging to foreign policy as a bunch of ignorant voters hitting the polls.
Am I advocating for some sort of elitism?
You betcha.
One of the more counterproductive byproducts of having our political system hijacked by campaigns obsessed with ignorant voters is that the word "elite" has been saddled with terrible PR. True, one boilerplate definition essentially means "rich snobs" but another -- and the one more central to my point -- means the best or most skilled in a group. We don't seem to have a problem understanding the importance of having elite athletes on our favorite sports team, but some of us have been trained to have a gag reflex at the very mention of the country's elite thinkers running the country.
The Founding Fathers were not a bunch of average Joes with gripes about England; they were elite thinkers and philosophers. James Madison attended what is now Princeton. John Hancock went to Harvard. Thomas Jefferson enrolled at the College of William and Mary when he was 16. Today it seems the more education a candidate has, the harder he or she has to work to distance him or herself from it.
So how do we weed out ignorant voters without harking back to the days of poll taxes and Jim Crow? I would start by making the U.S. Naturalization Test -- given to immigrants who want to become citizens -- part of the voter registration process.
If knowing the number of years a senator is elected to serve is required of anyone who wants to become a U.S. citizen, is it too much to expect that information to be common knowledge for those of us who already are? This has nothing to do with who a person is or how they may vote but everything to do with a person voting as an informed citizen, not a sound bite regurgitator. Having a grasp of current events would be ideal, but if we could at least raise the required investment to engage in the political system, perhaps the tone of the rhetoric surrounding it can be elevated as well.
We wouldn't issue a driver's license to someone unable to pass the written test, knowing the potential damage that person could do behind the wheel. Why do we look at voting differently?
While the Constitution lists the reasons why a citizen cannot be denied the right to vote, it does not explicitly say it is a federal right. This is why felon disenfranchisement and mental competency laws, as they pertain to voting, vary from state to state.
I'm not suggesting we kick people out of the political process, only that we require them to have an agreed upon understanding of what that process is. If people are too busy to read up on the government, the Department of Homeland Security is not going to escort them out of the country -- or take away away their citizenship. At any point in which ignorant voters are fed up with being on the outside looking in, they can go to the post office, pick up a brochure with all of the questions and answers in it, and study free of charge.
Sounds harsh?
It is.
But at this crucial juncture with at least two wars, a budding energy crisis, a growing trade deficit, etc., do we really have the luxury of hand-holding? There simply needs to be more required of us as responsible voters than being born 18 years ago. Perhaps if we weed out the ignorant voters, politicians will no longer feel the need to dumb down the conversation in hopes of getting their attention.
And then if we're really lucky, maybe the ignorant politicians will go away as well.
At least one can dream. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jkfunkee___
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 5748
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| voting otta be compulsory australian style |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djdavidwhite
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 696
Location: The Bay
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Its not constituional. They tried this in the south to keeps blacks from voting back in the days. Not gonna fly. Hell 38% of Americans failed the cititzinehip test in a poll. It sux to have dumb folks voting, but they have rights too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrpink
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 1683
Location: hotlanta
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| what rights do they have exactly? do dogs have rights? do 14 yr olds have rights? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mwooddy
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 5499
Location: EA
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrpink wrote: | | what rights do they have exactly? do dogs have rights? do 14 yr olds have rights? |
neither one of these are adults, therefore all of your questions are irrelevant to voting rights |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrpink
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 1683
Location: hotlanta
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| inferno wrote: | | mrpink wrote: | | what rights do they have exactly? do dogs have rights? do 14 yr olds have rights? |
neither one of these are adults, therefore all of your questions are irrelevant to voting rights |
so if you're not an adult, you dont have rights?
would you let an adult, who has the right to be a doctor but who has not had the education to be a doctor, operate on you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mwooddy
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 5499
Location: EA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrpink wrote: | | inferno wrote: | | mrpink wrote: | | what rights do they have exactly? do dogs have rights? do 14 yr olds have rights? |
neither one of these are adults, therefore all of your questions are irrelevant to voting rights |
so if you're not an adult, you dont have rights?
would you let an adult, who has the right to be a doctor but who has not had the education to be a doctor, operate on you? |
you are confusing several things. i am not saying that you don't have rights if you are not an adult. if you are not 18 or a dog, you have no voting rights. your doctor analogy is pretty irrelevant to this discussion, as well.
also, you are asking what rights "dumb folks" have?
it's not like issues such as gay marriage will suddenly disappear if you limit voting to only educated adults. sorry, but i wouldn't exactly consider this type of logic rational. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrpink
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 1683
Location: hotlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| inferno wrote: | | mrpink wrote: | | inferno wrote: | | mrpink wrote: | | what rights do they have exactly? do dogs have rights? do 14 yr olds have rights? |
neither one of these are adults, therefore all of your questions are irrelevant to voting rights |
so if you're not an adult, you dont have rights?
would you let an adult, who has the right to be a doctor but who has not had the education to be a doctor, operate on you? |
you are confusing several things. i am not saying that you don't have rights if you are not an adult. if you are not 18 or a dog, you have no voting rights. |
i suppose i should have said "voting" rights; but the real point it is, why do you suddenly gain the right when you are 18?
when does one gain the right to drive?
consider this:
| the article wrote: | | ...While the Constitution lists the reasons why a citizen cannot be denied the right to vote, it does not explicitly say it is a federal right.... |
| inferno wrote: | | your doctor analogy is pretty irrelevant to this discussion, as well. |
did you read the article? wasnt that the point? that important decisions should be made by qualified ppl? simply existing as an "adult" doesnt qualify one for determining how to manage a country any more than it qualifies one for performing medical procedures...
| the article wrote: | ...If I were to ask you to ingest an unknown medicine from someone who knew nothing about the medical field, you probably wouldn't do it...
...I doubt many of us would feel comfortable as a shareholder in a company that asked people who knew nothing about business to hire its next CEO?...
...I know close to nothing about the inner workings of my car, and so I come to my mechanic...
...We wouldn't issue a driver's license to someone unable to pass the written test, knowing the potential damage that person could do behind the wheel. Why do we look at voting differently? |
| inferno wrote: | | also, you are asking what rights "dumb folks" have? |
interesting question- but what i meant to be asking was "what rights do ignorant ppl have?"
again, something covered in the article:
| the article wrote: | ...Before getting all bent out of shape by my assertion that you or someone you love is ignorant...I am operating with the second usage, defined as a lack of knowledge in a specific area.
No one is omniscient; we're all ignorant about something... |
| inferno wrote: | | it's not like issues such as gay marriage will suddenly disappear if you limit voting to only educated adults. sorry, but i wouldn't exactly consider this type of logic rational. |
are you sure? it's not like we've been coming up with all these great solutions and we've got to make sure we dont mess up the way things are going...
why do you suppose politicians run 15 second commercials the day before an election? who do you think they're trying to convince? how wise and/or effective can this system be?
| the article wrote: | | ...at this crucial juncture with at least two wars, a budding energy crisis, a growing trade deficit, etc... There simply needs to be more required of us as responsible voters than being born 18 years ago. Perhaps if we weed out the ignorant voters, politicians will no longer feel the need to dumb down the conversation in hopes of getting their attention... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shlee
Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 170
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
aw man i would so totally vote for the bush's baked beans dog
Duke 2012 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mwooddy
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 5499
Location: EA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | why do you suddenly gain the right when you are 18? |
the reason why it's useless to argue with you is because you have such a "what if" approach to laws and governance. you gain the right to vote when you are 18 because that is the law. not 16. not 21. 18. when they change the minimum age, then you may have a case.
so, yeah...your analogies about dogs and babies and their right to vote is pretty irrelevant to the conversation about minimum intelligence (or lack of being ignorant on a specific subject).
how do you measure somebody's knowledge on a subject so broad and particular as politics? just because somebody spends a great deal of their life researching hot topics within politics does not somehow make their vote more worthy than mine. in fact, there are plenty of fanatical/irrational opinions from people who spend more time on political happenings than actual life.
you can pick apart my posts as much as you want, but all i see are desperate analogies to relate to a ridiculous opinion. by the way, is this the only board you post on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot add events in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
