- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 22,610
- Reaction score
- 9,415
- Location
- okla-freakin-homa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
slave labor for another....
Sigh......
Ok well, if you can't see it, I will explain it to you, even though I just did.
People have concerns.
Things happen, this is called current events.
Ok, keep these two things in mind.
People react to current events with their concerns and sometimes want a solution.
People vote to improve their lives.
People improving their lives has lots to do with their concerns being addressed.
This is why elections tend to have themes in any given cycle. This time around its mainly about jobs and the economy.
You do realize that both can be tested right?You do realize that raw intelligence and applied intelligence are different concepts, right?
I hardly think Glenn Beck watchers are uninformed. At the very least they are showing interest in politics. The same cannot be said of those who vote after avoiding political programming altogether.Ideally, yeah, they should be allowed, but should opt not to. But the sad reality is that most uninformed people don't realize they're uninformed. They figure they watched Glenn Beck and he told them what to do, so they must be more informed that folks who didn't or whatever.
I'll do you one better. Those without property should not be voting.
Sigh...
I was hoping you would understand it, but I guess not.
This was already addressed.
Why should they be informed of the issues of the day?
Especially when those issues may not concern them.
The emboldened portion addresses what you keep saying.
We do not need current affairs because, what concerns one may not concern another.
The underline portion of what you say.
Unfortunately we can't get rid of these people, so maybe we can weed them out by other means. :mrgreen:
You do realize that both can be tested right?
If a person doesn't have reasoning skills, they aren't going to be able to reason out who is best to vote for.
And as far as I am concerned it doesn't matter.
If we are setting the standards, then the rest have a chance at increasing their knowledge and IQ, and retesting
Set the standards and be done with it.
Note that I'm not asking if uninformed citizens should be allowed to vote. I'm just whether you think they should vote.
Or perhaps simply those who are net tax payers get to vote? You pay your taxes one day, get your bit notarized, then you go and vote the next day, with how much you are paying still fresh in your mind.
I know several people who vote strict party line, and the split between informed voter and uninformed voter I'd say is roughly 50/50.If people vote strictly along party lines, does it matter if they're informed or not?
No, because the government could just raise taxes to a level most people cannot afford, and thus becomes an oligarchy that rules over them and disenfranchise them.
People who advocate tying voting to property ownership are really only trying to artificially skew the results in their favor. For the most part, they know that property owners are more likely to be and think like them, and that they'd get what they want as a result.
Not really surprising if you understand base human nature, but still intellectually dishonest.
Every single US citizen should vote. I hate when people complain about the govt and then say they dont vote. Its the only way to make a difference.
Because having 1 vote among the millions of other people really doesn't make a difference. Your high school civics class was nothing more than propaganda for the state.
I think it does make a difference. you this election cycle santorum won iowa by 20 votes. now if there are bunch of people in the state that share your opinion they probably didnt vote. There have been so many close elections i think every vote does make a difference.
I think it does make a difference. you this election cycle santorum won iowa by 20 votes. now if there are bunch of people in the state that share your opinion they probably didnt vote. There have been so many close elections i think every vote does make a difference.
Well, I think that in presidential elections, your single vote does not make a difference, but as you go down to the state and local levels, your vote increases. For example, in the last presidential election you had about 131 million people voting (Newsroom: Voting: Voter Turnout Increases by 5 Million in 2008 Presidential Election, U.S. Census Bureau Reports), thus my one vote would not make a difference. But if it were a local vote, out of a town of say, only 24,000, then yes your vote would increase dramatically.
...will vote like you. Thank you for confirming my point.It's not dishonest. Those with property are most concerned with preserving the value of that property, whether it be land, capital, etc. In this way, those with land are trying to preserve the production apparatus of this country. Those without property do not care, and so can vote to dismantle that property (and pretty much have done so what with the income tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax, Federal Reserve, etc.). In the best interest of wealth, you want to preserve production, and if you must allow voting, you must only allow those to vote whom you know will preserve that productive capacity.People who advocate tying voting to property ownership are really only trying to artificially skew the results in their favor. For the most part, they know that property owners are more likely to be and think like them, and that they'd get what they want as a result.
Not really surprising if you understand base human nature, but still intellectually dishonest.
Honestly no. Here is what I believe in all sincerity. You should be able to look at a questionaire and answer three simply questions:
-Which of these a, b, c answers is the "Pledge of Allegiance"
-Which of these a, b, c answers is the current president?
-Which of these a, b, c answers is how many states are in the union?
If you cannot answer all those questions you should not get to vote.
Which goes back to my earlier point, how would we construct an objective measurement? Especially given that political issues are always changing.