• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Someone Be Required By Law To Vote In The Presidential Election(s)?

Should It Be Required That ALL Legal U.S. Citizens Vote In Presidential Elections?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • No

    Votes: 60 92.3%
  • Only A Certain Amount Every So Many Years

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    65
I am completely against requiring people to vote. For many of the reasons already mentioned.

Now, I am for encouraging as many people as we can to get involved in politics and get out and vote, particularly if they really want one candidate over another or don't want one candidate over others. And, I am for encouraging voicing your opinions to elected officials. I am also for voting in primaries, particularly in states that allow anyone to vote in any primary. We should be narrowing down candidates as whole to who we want to be in the "final few", not leaving it up to extremists on either side.
 
I'm not sure which post is more discouraging and more un-American.

Ths country was founded on the ideal of an Educated and Informed electorate. That's why the Electorate was so highly restricted at that time. As we have offered more and more people the opportunity to add their voices to the society, we continue to see society being degraded rather rapidly. That's why I see the need for a Constitutional Amendment rescinding the right of women to vote and instituting a poll exam system to ensure that only the educated and informed male members of society are allowed a say in things.
 
Ths country was founded on the ideal of an Educated and Informed electorate. That's why the Electorate was so highly restricted at that time. As we have offered more and more people the opportunity to add their voices to the society, we continue to see society being degraded rather rapidly. That's why I see the need for a Constitutional Amendment rescinding the right of women to vote and instituting a poll exam system to ensure that only the educated and informed male members of society are allowed a say in things.

Wow. Just wow.
 
Ths country was founded on the ideal of an Educated and Informed electorate. That's why the Electorate was so highly restricted at that time.

No, it was highly restricted at its founding because dark-skinned people were property and women were a step above property. The Electoral College was as much about giving smaller populations a voice in the Presidency as it was about making a nationwide election of the President feasible in an age where travel was difficult.

As we have offered more and more people the opportunity to add their voices to the society

You mean like dark-skinned people and women?

we continue to see society being degraded rather rapidly. That's why I see the need for a Constitutional Amendment rescinding the right of women to vote and instituting a poll exam system to ensure that only the educated and informed male members of society are allowed a say in things.

You forgot the dark-skinned people.
 
Wow. Just wow.

Show me another way to GUARANTEE that EVERY SINGLE VOTER is Competent to cast a ballot in an election and I'll be more than happy to listen to it.
 
No, it was highly restricted at its founding because dark-skinned people were property and women were a step above property. The Electoral College was as much about giving smaller populations a voice in the Presidency as it was about making a nationwide election of the President feasible in an age where travel was difficult.

You mean like dark-skinned people and women?

You forgot the dark-skinned people.

This has nothing to do with Race. It has everything to do with Competency and the people who ought to have a voice in a society. You know, the people who actually put things INTO the society rather than taking them out of the society. Black, Asian, Caucasian, etc.... makes no difference so long as you are an Informed, Tax-Paying, Legal Resident of these United States (who can prove such), and Male.
 
Supporters of compulsory voting say that participation is vital to a healthy democracy. They are right that an involved populace is helpful in creating a robust, pluralistic society. What they completely miss the point on is how to go about it. Participation in democracy involves a hell of a lot more than driving down to the local middle school every four years and blindly pulling a lever. If people do not care enough now to not vote. They will probably not care any more if they are forced to vote. The situation will not be improved by compulsory voting; it's a hell of a lot more complex than that.

As for citizenship exams, I don't really see a way of making it both an effective filter to only allow "informed" people to vote and not biased or exclusionary somehow. I'm not saying it will be as discriminatory as the literacy tests of the Jim Crow south, but a lot of what constitutes being "informed" is fairly subjective.

Also, there are valid reasons for not voting. Many people do not vote for religious or political reasons. Some people view it as putting the state above God's will. Others refuse to play into what they see as a corrupt, rigged system. In forcing people to vote, you are not just rousing the lazy and apathetic to do their part in a democratic society. You are also forcing people to act against their conscious.
 
Show me another way to GUARANTEE that EVERY SINGLE VOTER is Competent to cast a ballot in an election and I'll be more than happy to listen to it.

Based on what I've read....I'd think you'd be incompetent.
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with Race. It has everything to do with Competency and the people who ought to have a voice in a society. You know, the people who actually put things INTO the society rather than taking them out of the society. Black, Asian, Caucasian, etc.... makes no difference so long as you are an Informed, Tax-Paying, Legal Resident of these United States (who can prove such), and Male.

Why does gender matter? If a woman is as qualified as a man, why shouldn't she be allowed to vote?
 
This has nothing to do with Race. It has everything to do with Competency and the people who ought to have a voice in a society. You know, the people who actually put things INTO the society rather than taking them out of the society. Black, Asian, Caucasian, etc.... makes no difference so long as you are an Informed, Tax-Paying, Legal Resident of these United States (who can prove such), and Male.

You say that this has nothing to do with race -- and yet, your description of who should get to vote applies to women too, since they can be informed, pay taxes, and be a legal resident. I think your protestations regarding race are without meaning.
 
Based on what I've read....I'd think you'd be incompetent.

That's fine. The next moment I care what you think will be the first moment I care what you think.


Why does gender matter? If a woman is as qualified as a man, why shouldn't she be allowed to vote?

A woman cannot be qualified to be involved in the political process by her gender alone. For proof of that, please show me a single significant Matriarchal society in the medieval or modern world.

P.S. - Don't waste your time, there hasn't been one. There have been occasional female leaders but nowhere has there been a significant Matriarchal society since the end of the Celts.


You say that this has nothing to do with race -- and yet, your description of who should get to vote applies to women too, since they can be informed, pay taxes, and be a legal resident. I think your protestations regarding race are without meaning.

You can think whatever you want. Please refer to my comments to Dragonfly above.
 
That's fine. The next moment I care what you think will be the first moment I care what you think.

Right.

Which is why you bothered to formulate a response. :lol:

You're coming across as anything but sincere in this thread, aren't you?
 
This has nothing to do with Race. It has everything to do with Competency and the people who ought to have a voice in a society. You know, the people who actually put things INTO the society rather than taking them out of the society. Black, Asian, Caucasian, etc.... makes no difference so long as you are an Informed, Tax-Paying, Legal Resident of these United States (who can prove such), and Male.

Don't you ever get tired of spouting this antiquated garbage? Your dream world is never going to happen. Ever. Do you even understand that much? Give up the misogynist, elitist shtick already. It's really getting old and you sound like a complete idiot every time you post. You're an embarrassment to your gender and the members of this forum.

Oh, and ETA: I don't even understand how tripe such as this is allowed to stand. Isn't it against forum rules to post derogatory comments about minorities? How is someone given a pass to call and entire group of people too stupid to vote based solely on the fact that they are female?
 
Last edited:
You're coming across as anything but sincere in this thread, aren't you?

I am 100% sincere. I have no issue with anyone based on their race. Gender, now that's another issue; as is political and social philosophy, employment status, educational status, and a number of other things.
 
Don't you ever get tired of spouting this antiquated garbage? Your dream world is never going to happen. Ever. Do you even understand that much? Give up the misogynist, elitist shtick already. It's really getting old and you sound like a complete idiot every time you post. You're an embarrassment to your gender and the members of this forum.

No I do not ever get tired of spouting it. If you don't want to read it, it's quite easy to add me to your ignore list, Arcana. It's not a shtick. It's what I really believe. If that makes me an idiot and an embarassment, then maybe more and more people will put me on ignore; which is just fine with me.
 
A woman cannot be qualified to be involved in the political process by her gender alone. For proof of that, please show me a single significant Matriarchal society in the medieval or modern world.

Which shows that humans, as a whole, are maturing that we finally hold more things in regard to a person's value and ability to lead than just their brute strength.

"Ugh, me man, me bigger, you woman, you smaller, me in charge."

P.S. - Don't waste your time, there hasn't been one. There have been occasional female leaders but nowhere has there been a significant Matriarchal society since the end of the Celts.

I believe you just contradicted yourself here. You just admitted that there has been a significant Matriarchal society, the Celts.

It doesn't matter when they existed, it just matters that one did exist. All societies, except the current ones, have fallen, no matter who was in charge of them.
 
Last edited:
I am 100% sincere. I have no issue with anyone based on their race. Gender, now that's another issue; as is political and social philosophy, employment status, educational status, and a number of other things.

I'm pretty sure you're sticking to this line only because there's a larger circle of misogynists for you to hide in than racists.
 
No I do not ever get tired of spouting it. If you don't want to read it, it's quite easy to add me to your ignore list, Arcana. It's not a shtick. It's what I really believe. If that makes me an idiot and an embarassment, then maybe more and more people will put me on ignore; which is just fine with me.

The less people to tell you how completely retarded your ideas are, the better right? Typical.
 
Which shows that humans, as a whole, are maturing that we finally hold more things in regard to a person's value and ability to lead than just their brute strength.

"Ugh, me man, me bigger, you woman, you smaller, me in charge."

I believe you just contradicted yourself here. You just admitted that there has been a significant Matriarchal society, the Celts.

It doesn't matter when they existed, it just matters that one did exist. All societies, except the current ones, have fallen, no matter who was in charge of them.

It most certainly does matter when they existed, and the Celts actually pre-dated the medieval period. They were pretty much done being a meaningful society by the time the Romans left the British Isles, which was just before the medieval period began. With all of our "enlightenment" , "equality" and other crap in the last century there is still no modern society that has turned its general leadership over to women. It just hasn't happened, because the human species was never designed to be run that way.


The less people to tell you how completely retarded your ideas are, the better right? Typical.

Something like that. Moreover the less people who I end up having to ignore when they waste my time responding to my comments. Welcome to MY ignore list.
 
It most certainly does matter when they existed, and the Celts actually pre-dated the medieval period. They were pretty much done being a meaningful society by the time the Romans left the British Isles, which was just before the medieval period began. With all of our "enlightenment" , "equality" and other crap in the last century there is still no modern society that has turned its general leadership over to women. It just hasn't happened, because the human species was never designed to be run that way.

No, it does matter because you are picking and choosing which dates in our history apply just to try to defend your fallacious argument.

And our societies have not become women dominated because we have grown to the point (at least many of us) that we understand that both genders can lead together. In fact, working together, offering those differing viewpoints gives us a better society and more able to work on our problems with everyone's interests taken into consideration.
 
And our societies have not become women dominated because we have grown to the point (at least many of us) that we understand that both genders can lead together. In fact, working together, offering those differing viewpoints gives us a better society and more able to work on our problems with everyone's interests taken into consideration.

I'd also argue that our practices are still catching up with our stated social mores, and our stated social mores are still catching up with the law. Women are still lagging behind in the leadership department, but at some point I'm certain things will even out and then we'll have a society more like what you're talking about.
 
ONLY if there an option, "none of the above, try again"
 
No, it does matter because you are picking and choosing which dates in our history apply just to try to defend your fallacious argument.

I'm looking at the modern era and the one directly before it. When one goes any further back than that you are looking at societies that really have little to nothing in common with the societies we see in the world today. It would seem the more "enlightened" our species has become, the fewer matriarchal societies have existed.

And our societies have not become wome dominated nbecause we have grown to the point (at least many of us) that we understand that both genders can lead together. In fact, working together, offering those differing viewpoints gives us a better society and more able to work on our problems with everyone's interests taken into consideration.

Okay, and do you let the kids and the pets have a say in your society too? I hope so. I mean we wouldn't want to leave anyone out of the equation, would we? In any social situation there can only be one leader. Anything beyond that is mob rule.
 
Nobody can derail a thread like Tigger....
But, I will play along:

So, Tigger.... Would you include gay men in that grouping? I will assume you are going to say NO based on your previous ramblings I have come across...

I am very surprised that you are on this forum. Being so totally against change like you are, I would have assumed you would have used your .45 caliber retirement plan before you used something as modern as a computer and the internets....
 
Back
Top Bottom