Serious Discussion - What should voting requirements be?

[A18]

Uh, "taking a stand" is fickle?

I'm not really serious. I just think it could be a pain to take the test.

[12th Doctor]

Uh, "taking a stand" is fickle?

I'm not really serious. I just think it could be a pain to take the test.

What I have proposed is very basic.

[A18]

I just went back and read your post.

It sounds very reasonable, sorry

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Uh, "taking a stand" is fickle?

I'm not really serious. I just think it could be a pain to take the test.

What I have proposed is very basic.

The type of questions you are proposing would disqualify 95% of the American public.  In order to make an educated voting decision, you just need to know the basics about the party positions on the main issues.  You don't have to know about the mechanics of government, and you certainly don't have to know historical trivia.

[A18]

No gray area tests on what people stand for.

Then 95% of the American public has no business voting.

[12th Doctor]

Uh, "taking a stand" is fickle?

I'm not really serious. I just think it could be a pain to take the test.

What I have proposed is very basic.

The type of questions you are proposing would disqualify 95% of the American public.  In order to make an educated voting decision, you just need to know the basics about the party positions on the main issues.  You don't have to know about the mechanics of government, and you certainly don't have to know historical trivia.

Then they should find out!  They aren't forbidden from finding out!  That is the point!  Who your Governor is is not privilaged knowledge!  Just find it out!  Look is up!  What the Hell is the issue!?

[12th Doctor]

Uh, "taking a stand" is fickle?

I'm not really serious. I just think it could be a pain to take the test.

What I have proposed is very basic.

The type of questions you are proposing would disqualify 95% of the American public.  In order to make an educated voting decision, you just need to know the basics about the party positions on the main issues.  You don't have to know about the mechanics of government, and you certainly don't have to know historical trivia.

Did you acctually read my proposal?

[bgwah]

As you know, I support the own 1/5 of an acre of land to vote rule.

More specifically, I think I'd make the Senate for property owners and the House for everyone. Everyone would elect the Governor as well.

Owning land to vote is ridiculous. And even then, 1/5 acre isn't enough. Infact, its painfully obvious that you just want to STEAL the voting rights of people in the city (the liberals)  but keep them for suburbanites (Republicans).

Philip, why do you hate democracy?

[A18]

I already explained this about seven times.

One house - property owners. Helps keep densely populated areas from running the state. Keeps taxation lower.

Do you not own 1/5 of an acre of land?

[Gabu]

I already explained this about seven times.

One house - property owners. Helps keep densely populated areas from running the state. Keeps taxation lower.

Do you not own 1/5 of an acre of land?

You never answered my inquiry about why it shouldn't be the case that one house is for property owners and another is for everyone else, rather than having property owners represented twice.

[2952-0-0]

I think the voting age should be down to 16. If you could get all the responsibilities of being an adult you should have the right to vote. And literacy tests...well...we don't need to waste billions on nothing. We already do.

[A18]

I already explained this about seven times.

One house - property owners. Helps keep densely populated areas from running the state. Keeps taxation lower.

Do you not own 1/5 of an acre of land?

You never answered my inquiry about why it shouldn't be the case that one house is for property owners and another is for everyone else, rather than having property owners represented twice.

Because one house is supposed to represent popular will throughout the state (which includes landowners), and the other is to take into account geographic rights.

Remember: most Americans don't start off with 1/5 of an acre, but they do work their way up there. It's not nearly as elitist a concept as some are making it out to be.

[cwelsch]

Kerry and Bush refuse to fill out the NPAT.  Kerry himself is constantly flip-flopping on just what he's promised.  In 2000, Gore flipped a couple times on what the thought of partial-birth abortion.  If the candidates themselves cannot get definite positions, we cannot test on them.

[bgwah]

No no no, Philip. The only reason you want this 1/5 acre thing is to give the Republicans more power. Just admit it!

You say no one starts off with 1/5 acre but they work their way up there. But what about people who live in huge condos? They certainly COULD afford 1/5 acres, but perhaps that is just not their choice of lifestyle?

You say "take into account geographic rights," what the HELL does that mean. How does someone in some tiny suburban house have more rights than someone living in the apartment complex across the street? In America's early days, wasn't the land requirement TWENTY acres? But of course you have to water down that number so the suburbanites can vote, but keep it just out of the reach of the urbanites.

Your "idea" promotes nothing but an end to democracy and more disgusting suburban sprawl destroying farmland and forests.

You've even said how you want to split up certain states just to get more Republican senators and electors. This is just another example of your "fantasy" to help the conservatives. Your "fantasy" of silencing people and destroying everything our country stands for.

[Gabu]

I already explained this about seven times.

One house - property owners. Helps keep densely populated areas from running the state. Keeps taxation lower.

Do you not own 1/5 of an acre of land?

You never answered my inquiry about why it shouldn't be the case that one house is for property owners and another is for everyone else, rather than having property owners represented twice.

Because one house is supposed to represent popular will throughout the state (which includes landowners), and the other is to take into account geographic rights.

Remember: most Americans don't start off with 1/5 of an acre, but they do work their way up there. It's not nearly as elitist a concept as some are making it out to be.

Why should people who have 1/5 of an acre of land be able to have a say in what happens to those who don't while people who don't have 1/5 of an acre of land can't have a say in what happens to those who do?  Given landowners double representation would effectively give them twice as much say in political affairs as everyone else.

[DA]

You still have to work, unless your company gives you the day off. This would just help government employees.

And wall street, banks, mortgage companies, and anything else affected by the Federal Reserve shutting down.

[DA]

don't use these little nitpicking gaffes as ammunition to defeat my argueements.

But there's so many of them

[DA]

Uh, "taking a stand" is fickle?

I'm not really serious. I just think it could be a pain to take the test.

It would be a pain? Hang on, let me call the wahmbulance. There is too much apathy when it comes politics as it is. People won't acknowlege how much these decisions affect their lives. Largely people just do as those before them have done, much like religion. I don't see why people should be allowed the power that their voters card wields them when they don't use it resposibly (by making informed decisions). I believe that this country was ran by white landowning men for a long time on purpose: those were the people that took an interest in politics at the time. Now we need a more up-to-date system: testing. The real problem (and argument) is what should be put on the test, and what can be put on the test to keep it non-partisan on every front.

[DA]

I already explained this about seven times.

One house - property owners. Helps keep densely populated areas from running the state. Keeps taxation lower.

Do you not own 1/5 of an acre of land?

You know what else helps keep them from running the state and is fair? Proportional representation in the style that Colorado is going for.

[DA]

I think the voting age should be down to 16. If you could get all the responsibilities of being an adult you should have the right to vote. And literacy tests...well...we don't need to waste billions on nothing. We already do.

With a test any informed person could vote, no age required.
There is no country-wide government recognised language, thus literecy can't be an issue, in any language.

[DA]

Kerry and Bush refuse to fill out the NPAT.  Kerry himself is constantly flip-flopping on just what he's promised.  In 2000, Gore flipped a couple times on what the thought of partial-birth abortion.  If the candidates themselves cannot get definite positions, we cannot test on them.

Careful. I don't think changing one's mind is a bad thing. The more information you get the better decisions/beliefs you can come up with. Remember, Badnarik has flipped his beliefs on abortion too (although he has always said that it's not the federal government's buisness).

[A18]

We definitely need the minimum voting age to be 18, no exceptions. No one under that age has any business voting; I don't care if a 12 year old knows the three branches of government (gee, that's hard), his opinion doesn't matter and he's still under the authority of his father and mother.

I already explained this about seven times.

One house - property owners. Helps keep densely populated areas from running the state. Keeps taxation lower.

Do you not own 1/5 of an acre of land?

You know what else helps keep them from running the state and is fair? Proportional representation in the style that Colorado is going for.

How?

[Gustaf]

It think that you should have to take a nationally standardized test that contains a few, faily easy questions, that, if a perspective voter doesn't know them, then they will when they look them up.

Questions:

1) What are the three branches of government

2) Who is your Congressman

3) Name your Senators

4) How many members are there of the U.S. House of Representative?

5) How many members are there of the U.S. Senate?

6) Who is you current governor?

7) How many Electoral Votes is the winner of a Presidential race required to have?

If they could answer basic questions like that, then they would at least know something about the government.  If not, then they arent fit to vote.

I disagree completely. One doesn't have to know a thing about the political system or process in order to have sound political judgement. In fact, I've met many people who know all these kind of facts by heart but still are lunatic in their political views. One shouldn't be prohibited from voting due to lack of knowledge about the political system.

[DA]

We definitely need the minimum voting age to be 18, no exceptions. No one under that age has any business voting; I don't care if a 12 year old knows the three branches of government (gee, that's hard), his opinion doesn't matter and he's still under the authority of his father and mother.

I already explained this about seven times.

One house - property owners. Helps keep densely populated areas from running the state. Keeps taxation lower.

Do you not own 1/5 of an acre of land?

You know what else helps keep them from running the state and is fair? Proportional representation in the style that Colorado is going for.

How?

Children can't make informed decisions? I think if they know what the canidate stands for they can make as thoughtful of a decision as an adult; people don't give children much credit on the intelligence factor.

Well, people of certain farmland areas would have an one electoral college member to vote for. Let's take Missouri for example (I understand it geographically better than any other state.) MO has 11 votes. View http://www.angelfire.com/art2/dustinasby/moproprep.htm . As you see teh total there adds up to 22 (I hope). Simply divinding this by two gives MO it's 11 EC voters. The cities that are more inclindes to vote one way get their way, the country that is more inclined to vote another way gets their voice too.

The only problem I have with this all is that the decision lies in the hands of the public rather than the state govt. (which I've recently come to believe really ought to be electing who is governing them. Of course for this to work the federal govt. should govern people minimally and do the rest of it's work in governing states.

Also I agree with Gustaf, a test should be more about what the canidates believe not how the system works (like I said before: pass the "how it works" test once to become able to vote. pass the "how canidate x believes" test to vote for that canidate.) This would also promote positive ampaigning rather than negative. (officials want people to know what they stand for so they will pass the test and the canidate can get votes.)

[minionofmidas]

16 years of age, not a certified lunatic, permanent residence in the place you want to vote in, showing up at the polling station in person.

Not everyone can get off of work to vote, and polling stations arn't always open very late.

That is why, in democracies, elections are either held on the sunday or polling day is a national holiday.

National holiday is a good idea, but local elections happen all the time.

There's 52 sundays in the year.