Instead of limiting the ability of people to vote, since less than 60% of the voting population does, perhaps we should look at ways to get more people to exercise their right to vote. I would suggest that if you don't register to vote, don't vote even if you are registered, that any access to government programs such as SS, Medicaid, Medicare, foodstamps, rent subsidies, student loans, etc., be denied. If you don't participate in electing your government you do NOT get to participate in government programs. Something of this nature would also help in identifying the voter since, you would think, each individual would want to make sure they were eligible for their government program of choice so they would have to make sure that it was verified that they were the individual that actually voted. Keep in mind that is a very broad overview and that there are details that would have to be thought of and accounted for but my point is to get more citizens involved in their government, not less. Make it a government of the people, by the people, for the people, not a government of the few, by the few, for the few.
What about those (few... and of all races) who live entirely off government programs? Is it right for those who only take from the government to have the right to decide (by voting) whether those giveaway programs continue? I am meddling, but it seems funny how those who never contribute, sure don't mind telling those who do how to spend their own money. Poverty and lack of education do seem to make good cell mates.
They vote for politicians, not programs. If the majority of voters select a politician that will continue the programs then that would seem to be what the majority wanted, not just the few on the programs. But really, isn't that what all voters do? Vote for the politicians that promise what thos voters want? Perhaps if we could get evryone voting and not just those interested in their special programs then things may change a little. Maybe not but, it seems to me, that in a democracy more voters is better than less.
But there was a test! It was property ownership, which entailed one having the cognitive abilities necessary to file the papers necessary for property ownership and to ably manage one's affairs.
I think we should just abandoned Goverment and just let big money and the christian right run the counrty, it's time to take out the middle man Becareful what you wish for, a lot of far right religious nuts could not pass the test about our Goverment and Country. They only know what their religion/church tells them. Yeah I said it
National Embarrassment!? Man that was major Chimposity at it's finest! Special interest groups was going around to sub-divisions, housing projects, homeless shelters literally paying people to vote for Al Gore it was Eff-ing insane. They would pick people up in shuttle buses take them to a community center give the food and drink. They even had a slide projector show on how to vote for Gore and full Democratic ticket. If anyone was leaning toward Bush/Cheney, they where left behind or never taken to the correct voting place to vote. They even went to New Life Inn Shelter and gave people whom voted Democratic first bids on sleeping and allowed them to stay until the next day. This was not only done in the Black Community it was done in the White communities as well. When I finally took my ballot and stuffed into the Ballot box The elderly White woman called me a traitor to my race. People nationally don't even know the jest of what happened in Florida. Suffice it to say if you can imagine it, it happened.
Christian...er... right? Like the Dems are the non-Christian left and the Repubs are the Christian right? That's funny. We're not talking about "religious nuts." We are talking about men of wisdom who can operate from a single central unifying document without twisting and sorting it to fit their own personal agendas. I am as scared of religious nuts as you are because there are just as many of them who can't pass a biblical literacy test who call themselves Christians. They give real Christians a bad name and quite frankly I wish they would keep their little secret to themselves. (Now I said it... see what you made me do?) I think we are all in agreement that we need to treat one another decently and help one another out during times of need and develop infrastructures that help us make sure that when someone is down and out, that they don't have to stay down and out. There just happens to be those of us who also think that a person provided with the opportunity to get out of their hole should do so instead of wallowing in it. These are all sound biblical concepts and I think we can all agree to them. What we can't agree to is people twisting and distorting any document (religious or not) to best serve themselves to the exclusion of everyone else.
Who right now is the christian groups supporting more? I will amend my statement and say the Tea Party wing. There is no doubt the Republicans have done a GREAT job of getting their votes.
I think the majority of us agree with that. Where we disagree, it seems to me, is that I think 85+% are using the opportunity to get out of their hole and 15% or less choose to wallow. Many want to end these programs that help just to punish a very small percentage of people that abuse the program. But that seems to be the way it always happens, punish the many for the sins of the few. Do you think we spend more on foreign aid or on social programs? More on corporate welfare (AG, dairy, mining, livestock, subsidies) than social welfare? Why does a gallon of milk cost what it does? How much would sugar cost if we weren't propping up the price?
Why is it when someone suggests a test to limit the freedoms/rights of others they never seem to imagine themselves in the group that gets limited? A question for those of you that think a proficiency test is a good idea: What if you took the test and were told you failed? "They" don't show you the answers so you can see what you missed, "they" don't even tell you how many you missed, just that you failed and cannot vote. Are you still good with having a proficiency test to vote after that happens to you?
I am not sure we disagree at all Bruce; maybe on the exact percentage values unless you have supporting data. We have made it unprofitable for farmers to farm, industries to produce, miners to mine etc... And then we complain when they take their ball and leave? Ridiculous... and its not a left vs. right, Christian vs. non-Christian, Black vs White issue. It's simply an issue of ignorance keeping fear alive because fear is where a bully's power comes from. One of my favorite movies is "The Village;" ignorance kept fear alive, and fear kept the people under control. You see if we had a proficiency test, people would have to at least know how the process works and what the issues really are. You asked some great questions and I'll bet you 90% (made up number) have no idea what the answers are or what the Constitution says.
No supporting data, never looked into it that far. Just based on the many things I read. The blind daughter wasn't afraid . Maybe there's a message in that.
The downside being that you are now forcing a lot of people to vote who had no intentions on doing so, the unfortunate result may be random selections, resulting in swayed election results. In perfect world these people upon being told that they have to vote, would research each candidate and vote based on beliefs, unfortunately for the most part this would not happen.
Far too many idiots vote. Far too many dead people vote. Far too many people vote repeatedly. There's not much we can do about the idiots... but we could require a photo id to help curb the voter fraud. That's really not asking a lot. If more 'thinking' people voted, we wouldn't need to worry about all the sheeple voting. The challenge is to get people to be 'thinking' when it's so much easier to be a sheeple.
The above. I found some responses humorous in this thread as many so called "educated" people don't even know the truth of their party's existence. Particularily the right side.. who often claim Jefferson as their own.. which you know.. is REALLY amusing. Should they be allowed to vote?
Okay, what if there is a study guide with actual reading required? There are no trick questions; just straight forward facts with only one right answer. I don't know maybe something similar to the naturalization test that immigrants have to take. The test could only be failed by those who cannot or will not read the book (there are audio books available). No longer would we rely on getting our information from Fox, MSNBC or CNN but from recorded historical documents. Those who run for office must also provide proof of their credentials, proving their aptitude and qualification for the job. I have to provide proof of all my degrees and experiences when I apply for a job and have to pass a background check to make sure I am a citizen, am not a criminal and do not owe back taxes. I see no reason why a political candidate shouldn't be required to do the same. The sample questions would be pretty simple: 1. Which of the following is "not" a signer of the Declaration of Independence? A. John Adams B. John Hancock C. Abraham Lincoln D. Benjamin Franklin 2. What Year was the Declaration of Independence signed? A. 1812 B. 1941 C. 1776 D. 1861 3. What city is the capital of the United States? A. Atlanta B. New York C. Chicago D. Washington DC 4. Who bombed Pearl Harbor? A. Germany B. England C. Japan D. Russia I guarantee there would be a surprisingly large percentage that would miss simple questions like these. I'll even go one further... you provide a High School Diploma, you can vote. You drop out, you have to take the test. By the way, I also support a mandatory proficiency test for a driver's license before we let Kuckoos behind the wheel. And its real simple, you can take the voter's test when you take your drivers license proficiency exam and a "VE" gets placed on your license indicating you are voting eligible. I am not suggesting any person's freedoms be limited: on the contrary...only that we remind people that freedom (I prefer the term Liberty) had and has an enormous cost and is not kept without exercising a degree of responsibility.
I bombed the test! I guess I shouldn't be voting. On a side note, I don't vote/mark someones name on a ballot that I know nothing about.
You must not have been home-schooled! Kudos to you... I don't either. I believe we should vote "For" a candidate not "the lesser of two weevils." (From the movie "Master and Commander") The Repubs seem to be running a campaign based on a platform that says anyone but Obama. I can't vote for him either but that alone does not make the Republican candidate a good choice.
