|
Is it just me or really there should be some sort of competent test to see if you even vaguely know what you are voting for esp on things like props/measures.
I mean at lest something like a math question at the begging of voting or something. Sometimes i wonder how do some props pass and how turth be skewed by ads etc, i mean when i see vote for measure uu on a poser im like "WHY wtf is uu don't tell me to vote for it unless you give me something more, fucking waste of paper".
Take prop 8 in cali frankly most of California is okay with gay marriage and most of the money funding the campaign against prop 8 is from out of state and by the way they put it you'd be thinking its about teaching children about gay marriage. When its about abolishing gay marriage all together(in cali) =p but they don't say that.
Really i think props should have no description and you should answer the correct description meaning those who know jack shit about it shouldn't be allowed to vote for it. Or at lest something to prove your at lest knowledgeable overall to make a proper decision
Just a thought maybe incomplete just thought i would share what i was currently thinking. Discuss pros and cons bitch for all i care.
|
United States17042 Posts
This used to be an idea back when slavery laws were in effect. The problem is that education isn't required, so back then (before the civil war in America obviously), the "tests" for voting competency were basically was to weed out the uneducated (slaves). This ended up being defacto segregation
In the constitution as well as the bill of rights+amendments, everyone who is an American citizen over the age of 18 is allowed to vote, and for good reason. Without allowing everyone to vote, you have segregation, which is a bad thing.
|
United States24740 Posts
Why do you type like this IzzyCraft?
|
cuz my thoughts and my words don't line up well =p i typo alot. All i was thinking was god dam fucking campaigns for shit don't really say what that thing is for. So i thought you should at lest know what a thing is for before you go voting for it
On November 02 2008 08:23 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:
This used to be an idea back when slavery laws were in effect. The problem is that education isn't required, so back then (before the civil war in America obviously), the "tests" for voting competency were basically was to weed out the uneducated (slaves). This ended up being defacto segregation
In the constitution as well as the bill of rights+amendments, everyone who is an American citizen over the age of 18 is allowed to vote, and for good reason. Without allowing everyone to vote, you have segregation, which is a bad thing.
The math thing was kinda a random suggestion. Mostly what i was focusing on was no disciription of props or anything during voting day. And for you to vote for something you should know it before hand at lest well enough to answer a simple question about it. Meaning you can't vote for something you don't understand is all.
|
Sadly, no there should not.
It might be in the best interest of the country (might be), but it would not be in the best interest of the individuals of the country. It would be morally wrong, and would set a bad precedent.
Also what you are saying about props is a bad idea. A perfect example of why it is a bad idea is pushy christians. pushy christians all voting for or against a proposition that was introduced by pushy christians. pushy christians would easily pass or block various props if a demonstration of prior understanding of the propositions were required.
|
On November 02 2008 08:18 IzzyCraft wrote:
Take prop 8 in cali frankly most of California is okay with gay marriage and most of the money funding the campaign against prop 8 is from out of state and by the way they put it you'd be thinking its about teaching children about gay marriage. I think you mean that the people for prop 8 are saying all this stuff. Prop 8 is to abolish gay marriage, everyone who wants gay marriage is voting NO on prop 8.
I just ran into a few people who weren't sure if they had to vote yes or no on prop 8 if they wanted to keep gay marriage legal so...yeah.
|
On November 02 2008 08:32 Falcynn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 08:18 IzzyCraft wrote:
Take prop 8 in cali frankly most of California is okay with gay marriage and most of the money funding the campaign against prop 8 is from out of state and by the way they put it you'd be thinking its about teaching children about gay marriage. I think you mean that the people for prop 8 are saying all this stuff. Prop 8 is to abolish gay marriage, everyone who wants gay marriage is voting NO on prop 8. I just ran into a few people who weren't sure if they had to vote yes or no on prop 8 if they wanted to keep gay marriage legal so...yeah.
in oregon it tells u on the ballot, right next to the yes or no it explains what voting for the yes or no will do
|
This sort of thing would be great if you could somehow do it in a fair way. Who would make these questions up? Who would determine who is competent. I just dont think you could determine the competent people from the incompetents in a fair way.
|
On November 02 2008 08:32 Falcynn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 08:18 IzzyCraft wrote:
Take prop 8 in cali frankly most of California is okay with gay marriage and most of the money funding the campaign against prop 8 is from out of state and by the way they put it you'd be thinking its about teaching children about gay marriage. I think you mean that the people for prop 8 are saying all this stuff. Prop 8 is to abolish gay marriage, everyone who wants gay marriage is voting NO on prop 8. I just ran into a few people who weren't sure if they had to vote yes or no on prop 8 if they wanted to keep gay marriage legal so...yeah.
Yeah that was a typo prop 8 is about rewriting a part of the cali Constitution to put something like "Marriage is only between a man and a woman." I typo alot =p
|
well, is there really such a thing as "competency" in a truly democratic voting process?
even if the people pick based on which looks best to them, or who's clothes they like, it's still their vote and it's based on some sort of rationale
|
On November 02 2008 08:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 08:32 Falcynn wrote:On November 02 2008 08:18 IzzyCraft wrote:
Take prop 8 in cali frankly most of California is okay with gay marriage and most of the money funding the campaign against prop 8 is from out of state and by the way they put it you'd be thinking its about teaching children about gay marriage. I think you mean that the people for prop 8 are saying all this stuff. Prop 8 is to abolish gay marriage, everyone who wants gay marriage is voting NO on prop 8. I just ran into a few people who weren't sure if they had to vote yes or no on prop 8 if they wanted to keep gay marriage legal so...yeah. in oregon it tells u on the ballot, right next to the yes or no it explains what voting for the yes or no will do I'm pretty sure it's the same here in California, but I still like to clarify.
|
Government deciding who fit to vote is almost as stupid as what the US did with Hamas.
Government shouldn't care about itself. If the government sucks, the people need to fix it. Not the government.
If the people won't then they don't deserve better. They then can only hope some oppressive violent tyran will take over and turture half of them just out of paranoia.
Ooh, and everyone who is for civil rights is against 'gay marriage'. Not only has the government no right to say anything about marriage, gay people should be able to have normal marriagies, not special ones for homosexuals, or whatever that means.
Can't believe they need a law to allow gay marriage. Just remove the one banning it in the first place. Or rewrite the constitution.
|
On November 02 2008 08:34 Mastermind wrote:
This sort of thing would be great if you could somehow do it in a fair way. Who would make these questions up? Who would determine who is competent. I just dont think you could determine the competent people from the incompetents in a fair way.
I thought a multiple choice would be best scene machine voting is done or electronic. And like a ballot would have to be agreed upon by both major parties in the state. As fair or some non partisan group to write out 3 4 descriptions very broad to what the prop is about without trying to be tricky.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
I've been saying this for years and people get pretty pissed when you mention it
break it out at the next house party you go to, its fun
|
On November 02 2008 08:25 travis wrote:
Sadly, no there should not.
It might be in the best interest of the country (might be), but it would not be in the best interest of the individuals of the country. It would be morally wrong, and would set a bad precedent.
Also what you are saying about props is a bad idea. A perfect example of why it is a bad idea is pushy christians. pushy christians all voting for or against a proposition that was introduced by pushy christians. pushy christians would easily pass or block various props if a demonstration of prior understanding of the propositions were required.
No it wouldn't. It WOULD set a bad precedent
|
I'm pretty sure that you have to be at lest able to read to vote anyways, Hell you don't even have to be able to read or speak English(dam US won't declare an official language even though it's pretty dam obvious =p although it does prevent more people from being turn away at the poles). So all this is, is raising the bar just a bit higher.
On November 02 2008 08:43 heyoka wrote:
I've been saying this for years and people get pretty pissed when you mention it
break it out at the next house party you go to, its fun
No the jewish is not a nationality or a race just a religion is a much more heated one.
|
United States22883 Posts
When you get discouraged about idiots being freely able to vote, just remember what Churchill said.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
Remember the Simpsons episode where the smart people run everything?
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 02 2008 08:36 BlackStar wrote:
Government deciding who fit to vote is almost as stupid as what the US did with Hamas.
Israel allowed that election to take place, not the US.
|
On November 02 2008 08:47 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 08:25 travis wrote:
Sadly, no there should not.
It might be in the best interest of the country (might be), but it would not be in the best interest of the individuals of the country. It would be morally wrong, and would set a bad precedent.
Also what you are saying about props is a bad idea. A perfect example of why it is a bad idea is pushy christians. pushy christians all voting for or against a proposition that was introduced by pushy christians. pushy christians would easily pass or block various props if a demonstration of prior understanding of the propositions were required. No it wouldn't. It WOULD set a bad precedent
well, it's an opinion
my argument is that it would be morally wrong because no one has the right to say what requisites there are for "competency" to vote.
you disagree with this?
|
Its not really about making sure incompetent people don't vote. Its about making sure that everyone is competent.
The way you approach the problem makes a huge difference. Education needs to be a priority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
