EPTVote Test for competency - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 02 2008 09:28 mindspike wrote: The way you approach the problem makes a huge difference. Education needs to be a priority. But education can't be a requirement. Until you can guarantee that level of education for everyone, making it a requirement on voting is segregation, and sets a bad precedent. On November 02 2008 09:29 IzzyCraft wrote: In my mind it just prevents those who don't know anything about it not allowed to vote for OR against it. You're seeing it from the point of what good could come of such an idea, and are ignoring the fact that such requirements could be abused for less than just purposes in practice. | ||
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On November 02 2008 09:38 cgrinker wrote: Sounds like you like Jim Crow laws huh? Maybe there should be a poll tax too. Yes you could make it bias trying to weed out certain things but in this case it goal is non bias. It's not a requirement to vote is a college degree just that if you don't know what your voting for then you shouldn't be allowed to have a hand in it. You obviously didn't put any thought into my idea. You just copied what someone said earlier, How did the jim crow laws limit voting by having requirements that had nothing to do with voting. These requirements are all about what your voting for. It's not that I'm not saying turn people away at the polls, just saying not to count those who don't know what they are voting for meaning if they know what prop x is let that vote count, if they don't don't let it count. Or at lest have voting with no contest and no description of props on ballots so that people don't feel obligated to give a vote at such a rash moment. | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
It is scary when you eventually come to realize it. Do you know how easy it is to persuade those people? You know how when those extremely slanted commercials come on, bashing a candidate with misconstrued statements and accusations and you think "Wow, who is going to honestly believe this shit." Well tons of people do. I've had people very close to me (family) say "Obama is a muslim, you know that?" I about lost it. I 100% agree in a test like this. It prevents people from swaying the masses with false promises, pointed statements and accusations. It is very wrong. So wrong. Very, very wrong. But I have lost faith in the majority of Americans. The ones who are smart enough and who educate themselves should vote. Yes, this could be abused. But I still like entertaining the idea. I believe John Stuart Mill talked about this in "On Liberty". I know it's terrible but at times I really think it's necessary. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 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. 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. They (California) don't need a law to allow gay marriage. Earlier this year, the state supreme court (which, iirc, has a judicially conservative majority) ruled that gay couples could not be denied the right to marry. Their decision was based upon the equal protection clause in the state constitution. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
But then again dumb people would just call it "immoral".. oh well, one can dream can't he? ^^ | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 02 2008 10:40 VIB wrote: Democracy is crap. If only people with a IQ of 130 (sd15) was allowed to vote in the whole world. I bet you any money that in 50 years there would be no more wars or starvation ^^ But then again dumb people would just call it "immoral".. oh well, one can dream can't he? ^^ This is absurd on so many levels. IQ has nothing to do with ethics. The greatest warmongers in the US military are the highly trained civilians, not the grunts doing the fighting. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On November 02 2008 10:40 VIB wrote: Democracy is crap. If only people with a IQ of 130 (sd15) was allowed to vote in the whole world. I bet you any money that in 50 years there would be no more wars or starvation ^^ But then again dumb people would just call it "immoral".. oh well, one can dream can't he? ^^ T_T yeah i mean that would be nice in theory but atlest my way isn't like sorry you don't make the cut it's more of a sorry, next time look up the facts before you come to vote. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7300 Posts
On November 02 2008 10:58 Jibba wrote: This is absurd on so many levels. IQ has nothing to do with ethics. The greatest warmongers in the US military are the highly trained civilians, not the grunts doing the fighting. agreed I dunno how you can even suggest that. | ||
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
On November 02 2008 10:15 Mindcrime wrote: They (California) don't need a law to allow gay marriage. Earlier this year, the state supreme court (which, iirc, has a judicially conservative majority) ruled that gay couples could not be denied the right to marry. Their decision was based upon the equal protection clause in the state constitution. The proposition would make a law against it that the people in the California house/senate cannot override. It would basically be a stronger version of the court ruling. With only the court ruling in place, the law can still be changed by people in the house/senate. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 04 2008 07:31 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote: The proposition would make a law against it that the people in the California house/senate cannot override. It would basically be a stronger version of the court ruling. With only the court ruling in place, the law can still be changed by people in the house/senate. no, and no | ||
|
Faronel
United States658 Posts
On another note, who says that the people "passing" the civics test that you propose would even represent everyone. Like that other guy said, a test was used to block out blacks. Well this civics test may very well block out a certain population from expressing their vote. | ||
|
LordofToast
United Kingdom250 Posts
Most idiots don't actually bother to vote anyway. | ||
| ||
