Who shouldn't get to vote?

Hmm, I was thinking... we shouldn't allow everyone to vote. It's just a stupid idea (and I think most people would agree with that to some degree or another, we don't allow those in jail to vote already).

So, who else should we not allow to vote?

Those with mental problems? Only certain ones that impair rational thinking?

An educational cut-off? (highschool diploma? college?)

I think there should be a test and certification program that people need to go through (and renew) before they can vote. It would test the ability to rationally think and test critical knowledge about main issues (along with education on those issues during the program).

Those doing this program and passing should also be given some kind of compensation (as they are doing a service for the country).

We really need to get away with the mass appeal and manipulation based voting that we have now....

I guess it would depend on what type of representation we would want. And when does the filtering stop? Usually voting is dependent on the lesser of two evils in my opinion, I'm finding this too with interviewing people.

Original Post by loriklorik:

We really need to get away with the mass appeal and manipulation based voting that we have now....

I agree on that point, but I'm not sure assurance of education on issues is the sole solution, although a step in the right direction.  There are plenty of people that are educated on the issues, but are still easily manipulated.  Part of that mass manipulation has to do with campaign finance laws, PACs, and lobbying efforts, and people have been trying to change that for years.

Then, of course, comes the inevitable question of WHO provides this education and "certification" of potential voters?  Government officials deciding on who is "educated" enough to make decisions on whether or not those same government officials get to keep their job is just corruption and additional manipulation waiting to happen.

So only the politically savvy with a higher education would get a vote? We are to assume that a minority will have the ability to make unbiased choices and decisions for the majority and still, somehow, maintain a multi party system?

I seem to recall this was a major point in setting up the US constitution. That a government lead by a minority is inherently biased and unable to provide a fair and just government for the majority.

But perhaps my civics education is lacking and I should not be able to vote.

I definitely think there should be restrictions on voting..

I completely agree with you santonacci, people can be well-educated but easily-manipulated, and the question of WHO gives and decides this education test is a tough one..

Howeverrrrrrrr, I do think the voting age should be lowered, at least in Canada, to 16. When you're younger, I think you have better insight as to what is really needed because you're not on your own yet and do not have to worry about who's APPARENTLY going to lower taxes and things like that. I think people jump on whoever throws out those magical words, without asking questions. Younger people ask questions, which is incredibly important, and they haven't been numbed or discouraged by society yet. If the age is to be lowered in Canada, there should be a required course (besides civics) in high school to allow them to vote.

And people with mental problems really shouldn't be able to vote.

Original Post by illingal:

Howeverrrrrrrr, I do think the voting age should be lowered, at least in Canada, to 16. When you're younger, I think you have better insight as to what is really needed because you're not on your own yet and do not have to worry about who's APPARENTLY going to lower taxes and things like that.

 But a 16 year old doesn't have a clue about the real results of some things that "sound good".

Like raising the minimum wage.

Sure, that sounds GREAT on the surface! Everyone should be able to make enough to live on...right?

Well, the problem is, when minimum wage goes up the unemployment rate also goes up (people lose their jobs because companies can't afford it and just push their remaining employees more). It is a balancing act...

That a government lead by a minority is inherently biased and unable to provide a fair and just government for the majority.

It is not inherently biased simply because it is a minority. You just need the RIGHT minority. You need a minority that acts for all the people (not just their own party).

Education isn't the deciding factor in this (though, education is pretty imporant to understand the issues and the real effects they have in the world....such as the one listed above).

It takes a combination of education and ideal societal goals (is the goal to keep the rich in power and controlling everyone as the republicans think? or is the goal a more wide spread social responsibility that the democrats have?). ...ideally i think we would want people speaking for ALL people (which would mean the narrow minded and selfish should hopefully be weeded out from being able to vote. but...just how selfish is too selfish? the cut-off point is where things start to get tricky).

Whatever the case, we need a system that is more than just throwing around keywords to manipulate large masses of people. Smart people aren't fooled by this stuff....but the other 90 percent of the population is happy to get sidetracked from real issues when someone starts shouting "omg, the gays are ruining the sanctity of marriage!". The sad thing is, politicians are all about learning how to use these keywords to lead the voters around like dogs....the ones that can spin stuff and lie the best are the ones that stay in power (because thats how the system rewards that kind of action).

It's even MORE pathetic that when we actually CATCH them doing this stuff (like bush), there is NO accountability (other than a few lackies really low on the totem pole that they sacrifice)....and....I guess the population is ok with that? While the same people keep pulling the same game of "politics".

Intentional mis-information should be a punishable crime when it comes to our government. People shouting "death squads" should be put in jail for trying to manipulate the minds of the masses....

I think there should be a short quiz before being allowed to vote. If you don't know something about the candidates views and intentions, you should not be allowed. The end. I don't care if you're educated or not. It disgusts me how many people vote for someone and vehemently defend them but couldn't tell you anything about their 'politics.' If someone is going to be making decisions for me, I would at least like to know if they will be anywhere close to the decisions I would make, and how pretty they are doesn't tell me that.

"I'm voting for JimBoB! Did you see him kiss dat baby on the TV? He knows what this country needs!"

Anyone who thought George Bush was a good president should be banned from voting for the rest of their life.

Original Post by loriklorik:

We really need to get away with the mass appeal and manipulation based voting that we have now....

 We already do get away with it.

Am assuming, from now on, that all your posts are to be taken seriously, no matter how wild and crazy your assertions may be, therefore:

I do agree we need an overhaul to the voting system, starting with a return to paper ballots and a law that we have to wait a week for the results.

Certification of voters can remain the same - the idea of paying people to vote is not a good one, for obvious reasons.

Two words:

Yo momma.

Only male land owners should be allowed to vote.

Just when I was certain we were going to take lil Lorik's post seriously. :)

Original Post by kathygator:

Just when I was certain we were going to take lil Lorik's post seriously. :)

 *sigh*

So, after all your experience in The Lounge, you still have hope for seriousness to appear one day?

You know what they say about the definition of insanity... ;D

I think only people who don't go to church of any kind should vote. That would stop a lot of the pandering.

I really hope that this is a joke thread because some of this stuff, if really meant, is scary.  Education doesn't make one more capable of making an informed decision in the voting booth.  Education doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence.  I also don't think that going to church should force one to forfeit their right to vote.  Plenty of pandering goes on in other institutions as well.  Should we take the right away from anyone currently attending college because of the influence of professors?  How about people on welfare? Should we allow them to participate in the voting process if they're not contributing to society?  I think that the current laws of citizens not convicted of a felony and of legal age is the best way to go.  Once we start taking the right to vote away from certain groups, we start down a very slippery slope.  Once again, I'm still hoping that this is a joke thread.

Original Post by loriklorik:

Hmm, I was thinking... we shouldn't allow everyone to vote. It's just a stupid idea (and I think most people would agree with that to some degree or another, we don't allow those in jail to vote already).

So, who else should we not allow to vote?

Those with mental problems? Only certain ones that impair rational thinking?

An educational cut-off? (highschool diploma? college?)

I think there should be a test and certification program that people need to go through (and renew) before they can vote. It would test the ability to rationally think and test critical knowledge about main issues (along with education on those issues during the program).

Those doing this program and passing should also be given some kind of compensation (as they are doing a service for the country).

We really need to get away with the mass appeal and manipulation based voting that we have now....

talk about bothersome spam threads...

Just because its a slippery and very dangerous slope to go down...doesn't mean we shouldn't start heading down it (just we need to be careful and get it right).

Giving power to ANYONE is a slippery slope...you know, like voting in people to represent the masses? On paper it is nice, but just look how far we have slid down the slope. The state we are in is filled with complete lies and "twisting" of the facts to manipulate the uninformed voters. A 2 party system that can't set aside differences and truly act in the interests of the people (ALL THE PEOPLE).

I think we need to try and fix the problem we are in now. If that means starting down another slope, fine, because we are already towards the bottom of this one and something needs to change.

Education DOES help make people make better choices (would you want to have a president that never graduated highschool?). Education of the issues and the effects of the different candidates proposed actions DOES make you make a better choice on who to vote for.

No, simply having an "education" does not make you better able to decide these things...you need to be educated on the actual subject (such as social history would be a good thing to know). Saying it's dangerous for us to want educated people making the decisions is just...strange? Why do you want the highschool near illiterate dropout who spends the entire day getting high on the couch being able to put their voice into who should be running the country or what laws should be passed?

I don't want people voting for the sole reason that the candidate "looks trustworthy" or is "on the side of god". If society is to advance, we need the choices that push us forward to be made with rational EDUCATED minds (who act on behalf of EVERYONE, not just the elite).

Being rich or being educated does not mean you are corrupt or are unable to act in the best interests of the poor and uneducated.

To actively choose a direction that would enhance disenfranchisement is a mistake, IMO.

Original Post by kathygator:

To actively choose a direction that would enhance disenfranchisement is a mistake, IMO.

 

 The other option?

It seems to me that the options are

A) Allow everyone to vote (the educated and smart people are FAR the minority, meaning it will remain who can manipulate the stupid majority to their side the best)

B) Educate everyone! ....yea.... that is very unlikely. First, not everyone is capable of learning (average IQ is 100, while they might be able to spit back some facts, they are not capable of really thinking to higher levels...which means they can't handle sittuations unless someone tells them how they should think on it...and...again...you are back to whoever can mis-inform them the best)

C) Limit who can vote to those with the desirable characteristics. We allow those with strong bodies to move our couches. We allow those with the most lovely bodies to model our clothes. Why shouldn't we allow those with stronger minds to think of what we should do? I think of the voters as the board of directors in a company... and the common person as the customers. The board is in charge of making sure the right people are running the company...looking over what they do to make sure they are doing their jobs.... this takes involvement and education about what is actually happening (something most are not willing to do). We want the majority of people in this important role to be mentally able to do the job....not mr average 100 IQ that thinks we went to war with Iran...that doesn't even KNOW WHERE IRAQ IS.

A. Your assumption that educated and, more importantly, smart people are in the minority is flawed.

B. meh - nothing here to refute, but it has no bearing on the individual's right to vote.

C. Voting is a right/responsibility, not a low bid contract.

I get the fact that you think most of us are stupid and unaware.

Here's the thing: what do you plan to do about it? How will you get involved? What can you promise to do to reshape this country?

You're a smart kid - cowboy up.

 Oh, jeez, Lorik.  I just can't keep my mouth shut on this one.  Look, I respect the fact that you're not afraid to ask tough questions, but your ideas on this are plain INAPPROPRIATE.  I'm not calling you a racist or saying this is how your ideas would turn out, but it's strategies like the ones you mention that were part of the Jim Crow laws that kept African Americans from being able to vote for generations.  This is NOT a good idea.

You try to justify limiting the number of people with a political voice by saying "It's not inherently biased simply because it is a minority."  I'm afraid it is inherently biased, Lorik.  By definition.

Disenfranchising a large number of people in a democratic society means two things:

1. you no longer have a democratic society,

2. and you are stuck with a huge group of people with NO investment in the system because they had no responsibility in creating it.

Responsibility is the key.  You can't cure human stupidity by taking away people's agency.

By the way, I'm as frustrated as you are about misinformation passing for political argument and the lack of accountability in our public leaders.  I just don't think these problems can be solved by taking away people's right to vote.