|
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.
|
In my mind it just prevents those who don't know anything about it not allowed to vote for OR against it.
|
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.
|
United States3824 Posts
Sounds like you like Jim Crow laws huh? Maybe there should be a poll tax too.
|
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.
|
If any of you have ever worked in the service industry (fast food, pharmacy tech, etc), you will realize that a large portion, if not the majority of Americans are stupid.
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.
|
Hey it's not like you vote for your president anyways you vote for electors to vote for you All I'm saying is keep the direct democracy of that voting but make it semi smart enough that a more republic isn't necessary.
|
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.
|
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? ^^
|
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.
|
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.
|
On November 02 2008 10:58 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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.
agreed
I dunno how you can even suggest that.
|
United States17042 Posts
On November 02 2008 10:15 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On November 04 2008 07:31 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 10:15 Mindcrime wrote: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. 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
|
fuck no, a test would be horrible. America was founded on the idea that majority rules no matter how stupid the majority is. America gives EVERYONE representation, and that is the best system of governance ever. So if you make ppl take a test, you're weeding out ppl and destroying their representation. Even if someone doesn't know his/her civics, that person still has wants and needs from the government and that should be represented with the vote.
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.
|
Generally what happens in a democracy is the idiots are divided and their votes end up cancelling out each other. There will be just as many idiots voting for Barrack Obama because he looks abit like Will Smith as there are idiots who vote for McCain because they think Palin is hot.
Most idiots don't actually bother to vote anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
