Reply
Tue 15 Apr, 2008 02:19 pm
OK, I'm going to indulge my inner elitist, here.
Should we restrict who gets to vote? Should IQ, education level, SAT score, income, net worth, reading level, mathematical ability, athletic accomplishments, military service, charitable contributions, basic understanding of the US government structure, taxpayer status, or knowledge of candidates' positions on various issues affect who gets to vote, or how many votes a person gets?
Should we sell the franchise? You can have as many votes as you can afford....
Should we test for the franchise? Please solve the following quadratic equation....
Should we place requirements on the franchise? Please provide proof current military service, honorable discharge, or other qualifying service.....
Would you join the army if you didn't otherwise get to vote?
well I would say no... my disabled son... who is 25 and whose iq is 70 and who knows nothing about politics... will vote for whoever i tell him to and that is not right....but it is what it is...if it wasn't for the not so bright.... there wouldn't even be any politicians...
So do you have any thoughts on why the will of 50% +1 of the mob should rule?
Cross the street and make use of your legitimate right by making your voice invalid.
IMO, people who are either wards of the state, or are completely supported by the government, and pay no taxes, should not have a say in the electoral process. I am not referring to the working poor, who may not earn enough to pay taxes. They certainly should have a say in the political process.
I am referring to those who don't work, for whatever reason, and are wholly supported through government assistance programs. There is something grossly unfair about giving a person who simply takes from the government trough and contributes nothing to society, to have a say in the running of the government. As far as I am concerned, those folks are as dependent as children, and should have the same voting rights as children. I also am not referring to recipients of social security, who have already contributed to the system.
The issue of the disabled is a sticky wicket. If that person is a contributing member to society, in that he works and pays taxes, he certainly should have the right to a say in government, no matter how naive that he is in these matters.If he is supported solely through government largesse, he should not be able to vote.
I would suggest that if the vote were only offered to the intelligent and politically savvy, there would be only a small percentage of eligible voters out of the total population.
Come on drew dad. We all know that people don't vote for the most intelligant, or the one with the most experience. They vote for the one who looks the best or speaks the best or the one they see on the tv the most. They judge by appearance.
Ameican export word DEMOCRACY is rotten .
None of US wish to uphold the embedded big mac barbarism.
Phoenix32890 wrote:IMO, people who are either wards of the state, or are completely supported by the government, and pay no taxes, should not have a say in the electoral process. I am not referring to the working poor, who may not earn enough to pay taxes. They certainly should have a say in the political process.
I am referring to those who don't work, for whatever reason, and are wholly supported through government assistance programs. There is something grossly unfair about giving a person who simply takes from the government trough and contributes nothing to society, to have a say in the running of the government. As far as I am concerned, those folks are as dependent as children, and should have the same voting rights as children. I also am not referring to recipients of social security, who have already contributed to the system.
The issue of the disabled is a sticky wicket. If that person is a contributing member to society, in that he works and pays taxes, he certainly should have the right to a say in government, no matter how naive that he is in these matters.If he is supported solely through government largesse, he should not be able to vote.
I would suggest that if the vote were only offered to the intelligent and politically savvy, there would be only a small percentage of eligible voters out of the total population.
my son tried to work... and tried to save. the government programs are set up to disallow it. Why contribute once the government has decided you're worth x amount of dollars and fixes the system so you can have nothing more?
DrewDad wrote:So do you have any thoughts on why the will of 50% +1 of the mob should rule?
Because it wouldn't be fair if 49% of the mob did?
rabel22 wrote:Come on drew dad. We all know that people don't vote for the most intelligant, or the one with the most experience. They vote for the one who looks the best or speaks the best or the one they see on the tv the most. They judge by appearance.
Precisely. The vote today is decided by the sound bite. Does better educated translate to better informed? Or are the proportions of informed voter vs. drooling television consumer roughly the same no matter what the demographic?
USA is unfit/misfit to talk about DEMOCRACY.
USA is a fine place to vegitate/live.
Those who got infatuated with AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE had not guts to expose the hypocracy and uphold decency..
Most of my relatives(not Rama fuchs) are fed up with the soup sipping sub culture.
FreeDuck wrote:DrewDad wrote:So do you have any thoughts on why the will of 50% +1 of the mob should rule?
Because it wouldn't be fair if 49% of the mob did?
Why should "fair" enter the equation?
Life ain't fair. If you want fair, go to the fairgrounds, 'cause there ain't none here.
I suppose one could make the argument that if everyone has an equal chance to get their fingers in the government pie, then no one will be able to gorge too much.
Bi- I know that very well. I used to work with the mentally ill. The system was set up so that even if a person attempted to get off of SSI or SSD, the system worked against him. For instance, if the person worked, and earned a certain amount of money, he might lose his Medicaid, which is vital to someone with a mental illness.
It is a serious problem. I have not been in the field for awhile, so I can't say if there have been any improvements in assisting people who want to be self sufficient. I once remember a program where a mentally ill person could develop a plan for self sufficiency, got various benefits, and were assured that he would not lose his Medicaid, if he relapsed. The problem was that the paperwork involved was so daunting, that very few people could manage to get through it. I had one of my social workers walk a client through the process, and it was hell on wheels.
DrewDad wrote:FreeDuck wrote:DrewDad wrote:So do you have any thoughts on why the will of 50% +1 of the mob should rule?
Because it wouldn't be fair if 49% of the mob did?
Why should "fair" enter the equation?
Life ain't fair. If you want fair, go to the fairgrounds, 'cause there ain't none here.
Well, there is this whole concept of democracy and self-rule. I happen to like it.
Pure democracy doesn't work. Our republic has gotten by OK so far.....
"All men are created equal."
That doesn't mean equal outcomes, however.
Doctors get counted the same as day laborers?
Code:Year Voting population (percent)
2006 43.6%
2004 55.3
2002 37.0
2000 51.3
1998 36.4
1996 49.1
1994 38.8
1992 55.1
1990 36.5
1988 50.1
1986 36.4
1984 53.1
1982 39.8
1980 52.6
1978 37.2
1976 53.6
1974 38.2
1972 55.2
1970 46.6
1968 60.8
1966 48.4
1964 61.9
1962 47.3
1960 63.1
I am not concerned whether the poor, handicapped, tax-paying or not, ignorant, smart, well-educated, etc vote.
We have a country full of apathetic people that are more interested in voting for the next American Idol then the next American President.
Let's just make sure that those that DO vote, are actually allowed to.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace