• 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!

Do we need a requirement to Vote?

What Requirements should we Impose?

  • Minimum IQ Level

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • Pass Basic Literacy test

    Votes: 4 10.0%

  • Be able to pay Poll Tax

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Be able to pass test about a candidates position

    Votes: 4 10.0%

  • No Requirements should be made

    Votes: 29 72.5%
  • Total voters
    40
Anyone know the stats on how many Americans over 18 actually do vote?
 
No because there will never be a fair way to do it. The moment any sort of disqualification standard is put into practice it will be targeted by every special interest group who wishes to influence the make-up of the voting population in their own favor.

And I don't think this will just be political parties either. I think it will be any group with a political interest and it will make the lobbiest problem look very small in comparison.
 

Leave the current system alone. Citizens have the right to be heard and that is accomplished through voting.

 
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
Some current events are proof that one doesn't necessarily need to know a great deal about politics in order to actively go out and protest. Look at some of the "tea-party activists". "Keep Government out of my Medi-care"? "We've got an illegal in the WH"? I think you're attempting to create a big "if" where an atmosphere for that "if" doesn't exist. As we're currently seeing, passion is stronger than reason... and if people feel compelled to oppose or favor, a test will do little to stop that.
Click to expand...

Yea, look at some of the anti-war protesters and code pink, too. Or do you only see stupidity on the other side of the aisle?
 
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
Some current events are proof that one doesn't necessarily need to know a great deal about politics in order to actively go out and protest. Look at some of the "tea-party activists". "Keep Government out of my Medi-care"? "We've got an illegal in the WH"? I think you're attempting to create a big "if" where an atmosphere for that "if" doesn't exist. As we're currently seeing, passion is stronger than reason... and if people feel compelled to oppose or favor, a test will do little to stop that.
Click to expand...

People like this?

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related"]YouTube- Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!![/nomedia]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVX-c07uefc&feature=related"]YouTube- Obama Voters[/nomedia]
 
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
Why is something that is meant to discourage an American right inherently wrong? I think the question itself answer that.
Click to expand...

This is just populist garbage. This country would be ten times better off if we could find an equitable way of eliminating a certain percentage of voters from the voting pool.

People who can't read shouldn't be voting, period.

People who can't pass a basic civics test shouldn't be voting.

I also think people who are financially indebted to the government shouldn't be allowed to vote either, although I'm somewhat amenable to compromise on that one.

I don't think voting is a right, but rather a privilege you earn by being a productive and informed citizen.

If we can restrict intelligent seventeen year olds from voting, then there's no reason we should allow moronic adults to cast a vote either.
 
1984 said:
I also think people who are financially indebted to the government shouldn't be allowed to vote either, although I'm somewhat amenable to compromise on that one.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I personally wouldn't be opposed to a form of this. Perhaps you cannot be taxed if you don't vote. I would gladly give up my federal taxes to not vote since I am in georgia and thanks to the electoral college, my vote is meaningless.
 
Kandahar said:
I don't think you'd need to ask about any specific policy positions at all. Here are a few sample questions I can think of:

1. Who is the current Vice President of the United States?
2. Who is the current governor of your state?
3. What document establishes our system of government?
4. What is the highest court in the nation called?
5. How many states are there?
6. What are the two houses of Congress called?
Click to expand...

With those questions you will lose the Laker Girl vote. And a number of professional athletes won't be able to vote.
 
No. The system has it's problems but is fine the way it is.
 
Mellie said:
People like this?

YouTube- Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!

YouTube- Obama Voters
Click to expand...

Just an observation:

The cherry-picking videos of the far-right, seem rather short-- meaning out of three hours of interviews looking for the embarrassing comments, they had very little to go on...

Maybe some day Ziegler will have the balls to release his raw footage and prove me wrong.

on the other hand, these babies go on and on and on....

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448&feature=channel"]YouTube- THE TEA PARTY & THE CIRCUS - Final Healthcare Reform Protest[/nomedia]
 
hazlnut said:
With those questions you will lose the Laker Girl vote. And a number of professional athletes won't be able to vote.
Click to expand...

So? Thats even more incentive for people to learn about their government.
 
In a perfect world, citizens would have to pass a test on the basics of the Constitution and a quick test on the positions of the candidates in order to vote. I think that would weed out a bunch of folks who don't have a clue right off the bat.

In a perfect world, all voters would check off an affidavit that nobody paid them to vote before they received their ballot. That would weed out at least some of the pure graft in the system.

In a perfect world, people who wanted to vote would have to figure out where to register, go there to register, show proof of identity and address in order to register, and show up on election day to vote as they used to. That would weed out those who don't give a damn and remove a lot more graft in the system, and ensure more of an electorate that does have a clue.

In a perfect world, only those directly affected by taxes, zoning laws, etc. would be allowed to vote on such things. That would ensure no taxation without representation.

But, it isn't a perfect world. . . .
 
AlbqOwl said:
In a perfect world, citizens would have to pass a test on the basics of the Constitution and a quick test on the positions of the candidates in order to vote. I think that would weed out a bunch of folks who don't have a clue right off the bat.

In a perfect world, all voters would check off an affidavit that nobody paid them to vote before they received their ballot. That would weed out at least some of the pure graft in the system.

In a perfect world, people who wanted to vote would have to figure out where to register, go there to register, show proof of identity and address in order to register, and show up on election day to vote as they used to. That would weed out those who don't give a damn and remove a lot more graft in the system, and ensure more of an electorate that does have a clue.

In a perfect world, only those directly affected by taxes, zoning laws, etc. would be allowed to vote on such things. That would ensure no taxation without representation.

But, it isn't a perfect world. . . .
Click to expand...

If it was a perfect world, we wouldn't have ever needed a government in the first place.
 
megaprogman said:
If it was a perfect world, we wouldn't have ever needed a government in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes we would because of the differences in perspective and point of view. There would need to be a central authority where the people would agree and/or have their grievances arbitrated and settled. A perfect world maximizes freedom and there can be no freedom under anarchy.

I can't see a perfect world being a place where eveybody was exactly the same.
 
repeter said:
I saw the thread on "Can we have too much Democracy" and it got me thinking, do we give the right to vote to too many people?

Right now, as far as I know, the only requirement to vote is to be a citizen, and registered as a voter, which means you've gone a relatively simple process.

I think the problem with today's democracy is that too many people can vote, and too many of those people do not know the actual issues, but only know of the mud-slinging contest between the people running for the office.

EDIT: I forgot to include civil service as a prerequisite for voting.
Click to expand...

Voter eligibility should be based on contribution measures and not just a free for all.

If you don't add something measurable to the government coffers, you shouldn't have a say on how it's spent.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes we would because of the differences in perspective and point of view. There would need to be a central authority where the people would agree and/or have their grievances arbitrated and settled. A perfect world maximizes freedom and there can be no freedom under anarchy.

I can't see a perfect world being a place where eveybody was exactly the same.
Click to expand...

I can't say agree. In a perfect world, we would all know and do the right thing, all the time. The primary purpose of government is to settle disputes that arise between people, either through law, physical force, or regulation. We would not need those things.

However, as it is now, all people are at least partially evil which means we need a central authority to help mediate and minimize the worse parts of our own nature.
 
Phantom said:
I don't think we have the legal grounds to impose an IQ test on voters or test them on the candidates' platform, but it wouldn't be too bad of an idea in my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

An IQ test challenges the legitimacy of elections, if word spreads around that specialists disagree on the relative merits of such a test to begin with as well as its tendency to make others believe that they are racially and socio-economically biased.

The ability to ensure one's voters are "informed" is difficult, and furthermore, prone to exaggerated bias. "Informed" could mean that one watches the evening news every night, but nothing more. "Informed" could mean that one comes to a set of pragmatic beliefs about each issue. "Informed" could mean that the individual in question sided with an ideological mindset that compliments their sense of reality. Meanwhile, the "uninformed" tend to be those that the other's merely disagree with.

For instance, because I may be one of the few neoconservatives here, while there is a disproportionate amount of libertarians on board, one of us may insist that the other is not "informed". This is all fine and a normal part of discourse, but at the end of the day, I would not want to enforce such ideas.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I can't say agree. In a perfect world, we would all know and do the right thing, all the time. The primary purpose of government is to settle disputes that arise between people, either through law, physical force, or regulation. We would not need those things.

However, as it is now, all people are at least partially evil which means we need a central authority to help mediate and minimize the worse parts of our own nature.
Click to expand...

I allow for what is 'right' for one person not being 'right' for another; hence government for a free people will always be necessary. Two people can be in strong disagreement and neither be evil or even necessarily wrong. So in your perfect world, everybody would have to be exactly alike, think exactly alike, want, desire, hope for, and appreciate exactly the same things. For me, that would not be a perfect world.

Even on this voting thing, for me voting should be seen as a solemn privilege and never to be taken casually or lightly. Therefore we should make it an intentional act to seek out how and where to register, how and where and when to vote, and should know why and what we are voting for. It should not be 'easy' and it should not be easily corrupted. It should be the responsibility of the voter to not be manipulated by anybody. That would be the situation in my 'perfect world'.

Perhaps in your perfect world, you want voting to be routine, effortless, without boundaries and it doesn't matter whether folks know what they are voting on or why. It is only important that they vote.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I allow for what is 'right' for one person not being 'right' for another; hence government for a free people will always be necessary. Two people can be in strong disagreement and neither be evil or even necessarily wrong. So in your perfect world, everybody would have to be exactly alike, think exactly alike, want, desire, hope for, and appreciate exactly the same things. For me, that would not be a perfect world.

Even on this voting thing, for me voting should be seen as a solemn privilege and never to be taken casually or lightly. Therefore we should make it an intentional act to seek out how and where to register, how and where and when to vote, and should know why and what we are voting for. It should not be 'easy' and it should not be easily corrupted. It should be the responsibility of the voter to not be manipulated by anybody. That would be the situation in my 'perfect world'.

Perhaps in your perfect world, you want voting to be routine, effortless, without boundaries and it doesn't matter whether folks know what they are voting on or why. It is only important that they vote.
Click to expand...

Well. I think it all depends on how we define perfection. To me, a perfect world would be one without evil, intentional or unintentional. For that to exists, people would have to be different than what they currently are. Realistically, we will never get there, but I am ok with that too.

But yes, I consider the elimination of evil to be a indicator of perfection than freedom since freedom is often a relative term that is based on the boundaries of one's perception, imagination, circumstances, and will anyway. If the perception, will, and imagination were different for these more evolved people than they would not be any less free. In fact, they likely would be more free since they would be and have what they desire.

However, for things beyond right and wrong, I can see plenty of room for different preferences, however, the end result would be the resolution of these conflicts in a peaceful manner.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Well. I think it all depends on how we define perfection. To me, a perfect world would be one without evil, intentional or unintentional. For that to exists, people would have to be different than what they currently are. Realistically, we will never get there, but I am ok with that too.

But yes, I consider the elimination of evil to be a indicator of perfection than freedom since freedom is often a relative term that is based on the boundaries of one's perception, imagination, circumstances, and will anyway. If the perception, will, and imagination were different for these more evolved people than they would not be any less free. In fact, they likely would be more free since they would be and have what they desire.
Click to expand...

Without freedom, for me there is no 'perfection' possible. And with freedom, government in some form is necessary. But as you say it is all in perspective.

In any case, our imperfect nation has now made it possible for people to register and vote casually, effortlessly, without intention of purpose, or without thinking, and in too many cases without even being required to prove their identity. I can believe that all who think it should be that way are not evil.

I want registration and voting to require effort, thought, intention of purpose, and requirement that integrity be enforced within the system. And I don't believe that my want arises out of anything evil either.

I suppose very good people can disagree on that.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Without freedom, for me there is no 'perfection' possible. And with freedom, government in some form is necessary. But as you say it is all in perspective.

In any case, our imperfect nation has now made it possible for people to register and vote casually, effortlessly, without intention of purpose, or without thinking, and in too many cases without even being required to prove their identity. I can believe that all who think it should be that way are not evil.

I want registration and voting to require effort, thought, intention of purpose, and requirement that integrity be enforced within the system. And I don't believe that my want arises out of anything evil either.

I suppose very good people can disagree on that.
Click to expand...

I think our main difference is that you seem to want to find the best system possible based on what raw material we have. This is fine and ultimately it is what politics are all about.

For me though, I ultimately see human nature as one of our fundamental problems that will prevent us from truly being free. Obviously though, this does not mean I am going to attempt to be a mad scientist and do horrible things, but that is simply how I see it. I took the idea of perfection and ran with it.

However, we are stuck with the world we have, so we should make it as good for as many people as possible. Whatever that means to each of us since we are limited to our own thoughts.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
why should any citizen not have the right to vote, they still live in the country, and should have a say in it, whether they're intelligent or not. But if it were to be implemented, those that are exempt from voting should also be exempt from taxes, as they wouldn't have a say in how its spent.
Click to expand...
And the, equally, only those that pay taxes should be able to vote, so that the entitled classes cannot vote to retain said entitlements.
 
repeter said:
a simple test asking which party a candidate belongs to, whether he/she has expressd free-market principles as the way to go, or government regulation, pro choice or pro life, etc. Like 10 questions, with a 60% passing rate needed to vote.
Click to expand...
Hey -- if we should have to pass a test to have a gun, then a test to vote seems perfectly reasonable.
 
Goobieman said:
And the, equally, only those that pay taxes should be able to vote, so that the entitled classes cannot vote to retain said entitlements.
Click to expand...

Sticky wicket here though along with the difficulty of proving that one pays taxes. And everybody does pay something in taxes just by living their lives.

The danger comes, however, in exempting whole big blocks of people from incurring the consequences of tax policy. When 50% of Americans pay little or no federal income taxes, for instance, that group becomes interested in voting for people who will require the other 50% to carry the whole burden, and they are less likely to care what sort of burden that other half carries.

So the solution is to ensure that all pay a proportionate share of the taxes so that everybody shares in the consequences of changes in tax policy. Then perhaps more will pay attention to the core philosophy and track record of those they elect to office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom