In all fairness to Bubba Gumbo, originator of this thread, he did not suggest that voting be limited to a certain class or restricted on any basis whatever. He merely suggested that any efforts to encourage people to vote might stand scrutiny. (I disagree with the premise, but fair's fair.)
Re: BBB
Baldimo wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Limiting voter participation is not the answer.
The real answer is that we should be teaching Civics in school again. Civics is missing in too many schools and it's absence is clear from the voting patterns in the US.
BBB
What would you consider replacing in the school rooms? We have enough subjects that are not needed that we could easily replace some of them with a proper Civics class. Of course it should be a non-biased civics class but knowing the school systems now adays it would be anything but non-biased.
Students in the US spend less time in school than students in most developed countries around the world. Adding an extra hour of school to teach civics would pay off big time in the US and our interaction around the world.
BBB
Anyone in the US can inform themselves about the beliefs of people running for office. All it takes is a little time and effort, which is where the problem lies. Most people watch 15 minutes of TV and think they have all the facts. I think anyone who makes over $100,000 a year shouldn't be allowed to vote.
rabel22 wrote:I think anyone who makes over $100,000 a year shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Ahahahahahaha! Why do you think that????
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Baldimo wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Limiting voter participation is not the answer.
The real answer is that we should be teaching Civics in school again. Civics is missing in too many schools and it's absence is clear from the voting patterns in the US.
BBB
What would you consider replacing in the school rooms? We have enough subjects that are not needed that we could easily replace some of them with a proper Civics class. Of course it should be a non-biased civics class but knowing the school systems now adays it would be anything but non-biased.
Students in the US spend less time in school than students in most developed countries around the world. Adding an extra hour of school to teach civics would pay off big time in the US and our interaction around the world.
BBB
Teachers' unions around the country would be up in arms, BBB. You know that. An extra hour to teach civics? Why, that's mandating unpaid overtime!
As a question aside: what is taught in civics (if not about voting)?
(We have civics here ]though called in my home state literally translated social studies] which combines geography, politics and history.)
That would depend, Walter, upon which state and municipality in which you resided. You wouldn't be here for 50 years (legally at least) without get residence status, which in many jurisdictions would qualify you to vote.
Walter, in the USA civics is usually taught as a part of Social Studies nowadays (when I was in school it was a separate course of study). As in Germany, Social Studies usually includes history and geography, as well as current events. Civics, as a separate field of study, would be limited to a study of how the government works, what the Constitution guarantees, etc. etc.
Phoenix32890 wrote: I am always very suspicious of groups that push people to vote. They usually have a self serving agenda.[/color][/b]
Since such is done here by
all democratic parties ... ... ...
Agreed, Walter. Every party has an agenda. And it is in every party's interest to garner more votes. Even do-gooder groups e.g. the League of women Voters have definite agendas. But -- as somoeone else has already pointed out -- all they can do is get people to the polls. The ballot itself is secret and there is no way they can force someone to vote the way they'd want them to.
No, you can't force a vote. But you can know your demographics.
If you take a room full of bird watchers to the polls you can be pretty much assured most of them would vote against a dove hunt. The fact that they return to a chicken pot luck back at the Audobon Society is lost on them.
cjhsa wrote:No, you can't force a vote. But you can know your demographics.
If you take a room full of bird watchers to the polls you can be pretty much assured most of them would vote against a dove hunt. The fact that they return to a chicken pot luck back at the Audobon Society is lost on them.
Right. And if you take a bunch of beer-guzzling fools from the local sportsmen's club to the polls, they'll vote in favor of the dove hunt and any other hunt you want to put on the ballot. What's your point, cjhsa?
That is the image you have of hunters and fisherman?
My you date yourself.
Cj's still smarting because he can't shoot doves outside his back door. Of course, it's all the result of a plot by nefarious forces...
cjhsa wrote:That is the image you have of hunters and fisherman?
My you date yourself.
You didn't read that Andrew's üost before responded, did you?
Or do you really think only hunters and fishermen (I suppose, you meant that in plural) vote?
When does he date himslef to, cj? Last year, maybe? Recall our illustrious vice president? Drinkin' and shootin' his friends?
username wrote:When does he date himslef to, cj? Last year, maybe? Recall our illustrious vice president? Drinkin' and shootin' his friends?
Too bad you weren't one of his friends.
I'd suggest you all take a trip to Cabelas. You have no idea....
blacksmithn wrote:Cj's still smarting because he can't shoot doves outside his back door. Of course, it's all the result of a plot by nefarious forces...
Well it is.
Would you like to come over for some roasted jalapeno wrapped dove breasts and a little skeet?
No thanks. I'm allergic to little lead pellets in the face.
