Joe51
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 216
- Reaction score
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
To force an uniformed vote is to destroy the system. If you can force people to read up, maybe there's an argument to be made. Though I still believe it to be a losing argument.
I would like to see voting made simpler and more accessible, though. Why can't we vote digitally. My ID is confirmed and verified every time I make a purchase on line. Why can't these same procedures be used to verify my citizenship, district, etc.? Obviously, we would still need the booths for people that don't do digital, but that segment is quickly becoming a minority.
The point, to get back on topic, is making voting more convenient will do more for representation than we could ever hope to by forcing people to make decisions they have no business making.
I would agree with some of the others that have said a simple test should be administered before anyone's allowed to vote. If you can't name the other candidates besides your party guy, your out. If you can't name one policy platform that swayed your decision, your out. I would even like to follow with a couple of questions any voter should know, such as, which candidates are for and against obomacare (i forget the real name for it now.. srry). I could go on here, but I think I made the point.
When everyone has a voting booth in their living room and there is an established verification and knowledge testing procedure, can we fire congress? Can we get rid of the electorate? Can popular vote really make good decisions for the best interest of the population as a whole? Does the president then regularly interact with voters rather than congress members and business leaders? I believe this to be an experiment worth trying.
I would like to see voting made simpler and more accessible, though. Why can't we vote digitally. My ID is confirmed and verified every time I make a purchase on line. Why can't these same procedures be used to verify my citizenship, district, etc.? Obviously, we would still need the booths for people that don't do digital, but that segment is quickly becoming a minority.
The point, to get back on topic, is making voting more convenient will do more for representation than we could ever hope to by forcing people to make decisions they have no business making.
I would agree with some of the others that have said a simple test should be administered before anyone's allowed to vote. If you can't name the other candidates besides your party guy, your out. If you can't name one policy platform that swayed your decision, your out. I would even like to follow with a couple of questions any voter should know, such as, which candidates are for and against obomacare (i forget the real name for it now.. srry). I could go on here, but I think I made the point.
When everyone has a voting booth in their living room and there is an established verification and knowledge testing procedure, can we fire congress? Can we get rid of the electorate? Can popular vote really make good decisions for the best interest of the population as a whole? Does the president then regularly interact with voters rather than congress members and business leaders? I believe this to be an experiment worth trying.