Who should get to vote?

Re: Who should get to vote?

mysteryman wrote:

I dont eat fried chicken.

Hand over your citizenship and get on this boat to Britain.... Laughing

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

nimh wrote:
In one sentence: Everyone who gets to feel the consequences of the choices made by the government, should have a say in who gets to be in the government.
Then you must be against the voting age.

I dont tend to compare grown-up voters with children just because they have less education or dont read the NYT.

0 Replies

Re: Who should get to vote?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

I have long been in favor of restricting the franchise. I propose the following test for all potential voters:
Answer the following question: is kentucky fried chicken's crispy recipe better than original recipe?
Those who answer "yes" to that question would be denied the right to vote, on the grounds that they are too stupid to participate in the political process

0 Replies

Any person over 18 that thinks pro wrestling is real is disqualified from voting, on the grounds that they are also to stupid.

0 Replies

DrewDad
Are you not misusing/ abusing/debasing your mother tongue?
I mean English which is my colonial tongue.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Chumly wrote:
nimh wrote:
In one sentence: Everyone who gets to feel the consequences of the choices made by the government, should have a say in who gets to be in the government.
Then you must be against the voting age.

I dont tend to compare grown-up voters with children just because they have less education or dont read the NYT.

Your use of the word "everyone" is non-age-specific. I assert that citizens aged 16 & 17 do "feel the consequences of the choices made by the government".

Witness:

Quote:

Around the turn of the 21st century a number of countries began to consider whether the voting age ought to be reduced further, with arguments most often being made in favour of a reduction to 16. The earliest moves came during the 1990s, when the voting age for municipal elections in some states of Germany was lowered to 16. Lower Saxony was the first state to make such a reduction, in 1995, and four other states later copied the move.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age

0 Replies

I disagree with not allowing prisoners/federal convicts to vote. In local elections, I could see excluding them, but on a federal level? Either they're big enough to make a difference and we've got problems anyway, or we might as well let them have a say, being valuable in and of being highly disenfranchised... I'd hate to see it get used as a way to shut people up.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I assert that citizens aged 16 & 17 do "feel the consequences of the choices made by the government".

Sure, I can see lowering the voting age by a year or even two.

0 Replies

That's cool!

Then the question might become: should it be age specific at all, or should there be some other yardstick, such as one based on mental faculties?

Example: why should a mentally incapacitated 18 year old have voting rights that are denied to a highly able 15 year old?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

should there be some other yardstick such as one based on mental faculties?

Are we still talking about what the opening post was about? Because again, I think that everyone who gets to feel the consequences of the choices made by the government should have a say in who gets to be in the government. Whether you got a lot of education or none, whether you have a high or a low IQ, whether you are aware about all the day-to-day political events or not -- because those were the distinctions that were being discussed here.

Children, in our society, legally and culturally, are accepted as being represented by their parents. Whether you set the limit at the age of 16 or 18 is much the same to me, but a child of, say, 10 is represented by his or her parent(s). Because, well, it's a child. There's no equivalence here: again, I think it's wrong to compare adult voters with children just because they have less education or dont follow politics much etc.

If you're talking about people who are severely mentally handicapped and have the mental faculties of a 10 year old, then yeah I could see your point on at least some hypothetical level, but I dont think thats what this thread was about.

0 Replies

Please educate me.
How about the 3 or 4 weeks drama to decide the results of USA's 2000 election.
Should I expose how it was manipulated?
Are you sure that 2000 election is based on people's power?
Am I wrong to remind you all about the final verdict of one judicial luminary?

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

How about the 3 or 4 weeks drama to decide the results of USA's 2000 election.
Should I expose how it was manipulated?

And with "expose" you mean repeat what a hundred posters have complained about before, at the time and since? (How many pages have there been in threads about it?)

But by all means - what do you know about the 2000 elections that hasnt been said yet?

0 Replies

nimh
Correct me please if were wrong.
I am not proficience in English.
Is not expose and hypocracy english word?

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

Is not expose and hypocracy english word?

To "expose" something = to reveal something, to uncover something.

So for example, if you know that someone's done something really bad, or a government or a business has done something really bad, but they've kept it secret, nobody knows about it yet, you can "expose" them. You can "expose" the crime or misdeed, by telling people about it and offering proof.

If something has already been discussed 100 times, you can't "expose" it anymore: they know about it, and they've chosen to believe it or reject it. You can discuss it one more time, of course, but you'd only be able to "expose" anything if you know something about it we didnt know yet.

(That's my non-expert's explanation, I'm not a native speaker either - but that's roughly the main point.)

0 Replies

I know what you mean.
But i can only expose with the sources that are available thro# Internet..

If your disagree that hypocracy is not there amidst us then i stop exposing my ignorance without regret sir.
Rama

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

If your disagree that hypocracy is not there amidst us

I dont disagree about that. I didnt say anything about that part.

But by saying that there were manipulations of the vote in 2000, you're not "exposing" anything. Because that has been said 1,000 times before. Saying it for the 1,001st time doesnt add anything.

0 Replies

rama,

i think what nimh is trying to say is that when you start going off about the 2000 elections, you are not only beating a dead horse, you are digging it back up and putting a gun to it's head.

0 Replies

If- only if-I were an American citizen
I will cross the streets and cast my vote by making it invaid for the future residents..
My democracy is not made in Germany nor usa but India , Iraq, Israel; Ethiopia.
I know most of the Americans know better about the foreign word DEMOCRACY.
I had never heared any American president got 60 percent the eligible/ approved voters.
I know many American president had killed the sleeping kids and old mothers and brothers to secure THEIR INTEREST.
What a lovely drama?
My name is Rama

0 Replies

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.

You can't be serious. You have heard Bush speak haven't you? Have you seen a picture of him? He looks like Alfred E Newman.

0 Replies

Re: Who should get to vote?

DrewDad wrote:

Would you join the army if you didn't otherwise get to vote?

I can not vote.
And to answer your question.. hell no.

0 Replies

Who should get to vote?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know