• 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 Uninformed Citizens Vote?

Should Uninformed Citizens Vote?

  • No

    Votes: 36 76.6%
  • Yes

    Votes: 11 23.4%

  • Total voters
    47
This poll is inherently unanswerable, because the OP didn't clarify what "uninformed citizen" means.
 
Uninformed people aren't as bad as irrational people, and irrational people are far more common too. If you think that this only applies to one party, then you're one of them.
Not sure I agree that the irrational outnumber the uninformed, but I agree completely with the other part so much that I want to quote it myself when the opportunity arises.
 
Not sure I agree that the irrational outnumber the uninformed, but I agree completely with the other part so much that I want to quote it myself when the opportunity arises.
Yeah, I guess there are a lot of uninformed people.
 
If someone can't make enough money to buy a house, they're probably not the brightest crayon in the box.

They are many other reasons why some people choose to not buy a house.

Frequent relocation
Don't like yard work
Can see through the bologna that it's a great investment
Don't want to have to replace major HVAC, plumbing, electrical, appliance, etc. failures
 
Alright then forget the symantic argument of the driving issue. The moment someone simply takes your license away, you will complain about your rights. But, you are missing the point.

Applying a test does not affect your right. All you have to do is prove to society that you are responsible. Not everyone can purchase a pistol, yet it is your right to own it. Yet you will also be screened to ensure that your past behaviors do not contradict that right. If you wish to carry (right to bare), you will pass a test. Voting for people that will send troops to their deaths or to commit murder on behalf of the American people is a responsibility that should absolutely involve a license. Pass a test...and earn your right.

The constitution is a BS fall back that serves all people in their quest to design an argument. Laws and responsibilty build society. Constitutions do not.

RE: the bolded part (is mine)

I do not have to prove a ****ing thing to society, Sarge.
 
"You probably know that in the beginning only white males who owned property could vote. Property owners were thus privileged and got the right to decide for everyone else. In some states there were also religious based restrictions so it was not only necessary to be a white male with a certain amount of property, one had to practice a certain religion as well. Today this form of discrimination is unthinkable and yet it happened less than 200 years ago, right here, in America. The religious requirements for voting lasted until the end of the 18th century.

Then , close to the mid 19th century, a man called Thomas Dorr fought for the right of those who were not property owners to vote as well. He was imprisoned, found guilty of treason and sentenced to hard labor for the rest of his life. Fortunately he was released after only one year.

The end of the Civil War brought the 15th Amendment that gave American citizens the right to vote regardless of their color and race. It was the beginning of important mentalities changes. It took another hundred years before the ones who had been discriminated against actually claimed their right with some success. Many states still conditioned voting on literacy. There were even literacy tests. Racial discrimination continued to happen not only against African Americans but also against Asian Americans and other ethnicities and races."
Righttovote.org Center of Information Related to Voting Rights in the US

The far right now apparently thinks it would be a good idea to return to the days when only white men who owned property could vote.
 
Who decides who is "uninformed"?

According to the SCOTUS nobody can. Allowed exceptions for: not yet attaining age 18, being a convicted felon or not being a U.S. citizen (and resident of the state/district involved).
 
Note that I'm not asking if uninformed citizens should be allowed to vote. I'm just whether you think they should vote.
"Uninformed" is sometimes a euphemism for "with different ideas" or "misinformed" or "not as enmeshed in the details" or the like.

Considering that a huge percentage of both true liberals and true conservatives vote, I think it would be unfair to say that anyone shouldn't vote.

Better is that everyone vote regardless, and then we'll get the kind of government we all really deserve.

Better still is to part the purple myth with a massive yellow center just for the so-called "uninformed", dividing blue and red in a conquering fashion to where the most that can be seen of these political minorities is a greenish and orangish haze.

Even better, is to give the massive yellow center their own party based on the philosophy of liberty and justice for all Americans.

Once they have something of true value to rally around, well, it's quite likely they'll be a whole lot less uninformed.
 
"Uninformed" is sometimes a euphemism for "with different ideas" or "misinformed" or "not as enmeshed in the details" or the like.

Considering that a huge percentage of both true liberals and true conservatives vote, I think it would be unfair to say that anyone shouldn't vote.

Better is that everyone vote regardless, and then we'll get the kind of government we all really deserve.

Better still is to part the purple myth with a massive yellow center just for the so-called "uninformed", dividing blue and red in a conquering fashion to where the most that can be seen of these political minorities is a greenish and orangish haze.

Even better, is to give the massive yellow center their own party based on the philosophy of liberty and justice for all Americans.

Once they have something of true value to rally around, well, it's quite likely they'll be a whole lot less uninformed.

I dont vote on issues I know nothing about. Its been my policy since I started voting. I skip any issue or canidate on the ballot I dont know anything about.
 
I'm heading off now to poll whether they should be allowed to vote.
 
Note that I'm not asking if uninformed citizens should be allowed to vote. I'm just whether you think they should vote.

In late - and I'm probably saying the exact same thing others have said: HOW can someone actually choose a side when they have no idea what on earth they're voting on.

But I favor the 'none of the above' option for everything but the president - and then we'd just factor their vote for that topic/person out of the equation. Because even with me trying to be on top of everything sometimes I've gone 'who the **** is that?'
 
Back
Top Bottom