• 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
As if we don't have an oligarchy now whereby those with wealth and power solidify their position through the government? Well, I shouldn't be so general, as there is a difference between those who earned their wealth and those who abused government to do it.

Which is why voting should be more populist, not less.

And why I advocate a method to pass federal law via referendum.

Let the people themselves the chance to write legisalation so that we can get laws in place that won't be blocked by wealthy people paying campaign contributions to our Congressmen.
 
The term issues of the day certainly morphs from one person to the next but it always exists.
And still doesn't change anything, because it doesn't matter.



This is not how intelligence works.
There you go, doing it again.
Your answer does not follow.
You do realize that raw intelligence and applied intelligence are different concepts, right?
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.
This is not how intelligence works.
I have already indicated that applied intelligence does not matter.
Reasoning does.
Even though both can be tested (yes, it does work that way), reasoning is what matters.

As indicated from my previous answer.

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.



People will always use subjective measures of value in determining these things, which goes back to my original question.

Whats the standard?
Why are you asking a question when the information was already provided?
It is like you purposely engage in a circular thought process.
"... they could require a certain score/combined even, from something like the Military ASVAB, ACT or SAT."



Than you should study human behavior, because this is not how people work in large groups.
My favorite introductory course material was the "Social Animal". I even got my mother to read it.
But your point is nonsense. This is about setting a standard and what standards they would be.
 
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.

Except a government's sole concern is not production - rather, it also includes the well-being of its citizenry. And shareholders in a company are not inherently concerned with the well-being of the people. Rather, corporations are more concerned with generating profit - even at the cost it incurs to their employees and consumers.

Which is why it is totally unethical to develop a government system based on corporations.

After all, that was how the Republic of Rome was organized and it suffered civil war after civil war.
 
Which is why voting should be more populist, not less.

And why I advocate a method to pass federal law via referendum.

Let the people themselves the chance to write legisalation so that we can get laws in place that won't be blocked by wealthy people paying campaign contributions to our Congressmen.
No. Oh, God, please no.

Referendum is such an attractive idea on paper, but then you look at places like California and you realize that a great majority of their deep problems are precisely due to referendum.
 
Americans should have a licence to vote.

We recognize that a moving vehicle is dangerous. It can cause damage to property and kill. Therefore, we force sixteen year olds to study and pass a test in order to appreciate the privelege. We ensure that there is at least a minimum amount of time is spent establishing the notion that society is trusting this individual.

We recognize that a gun is dangerous. It can be used to torture and kill. Therefore we force permit holders to attend a class. They are forced to appreciate the power they hold in their hands and we establish a minimum training requirement with background checks. Even hunters teach their young sons what end the pellets come out of.

However, we have a twisted attitude about voting. We assume to give the dumbest individual between Hawaii and Main the right to vote for simply having an eighteenth birthday and breathing oxygen. Internally, the governor, senator, etc. dictates policy and guides society. He/she assumes to be the voice for the masses. He/she spends legally stolen money out of our hard earned pay checks (tax dollars) on projects that may or may not benefit anybody. Externally, the American president leads the free world. The entire world hinges on his speeches and our allies constantly look to us for guidance. We have the power to lead the world into war and peace as we see fit. We have the power to elect individuals who provide just the right promise (or bull****) that takes global events in opposite directions.

We can acknowledge all the power that "we the people" have......yet provide no basis of testing that would ensure society that the individual in the booth even knows the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Too many of our young voters know nothing about what he/she believes in, but they can tell you all about what their parents think and how cool their University professors are.

It seems to me that voting is far more a dangerous game than driving a car. Perhaps we would have far fewer dip****s in Washington if we had far fewer dip****s in booths.

If we're going to require licenses to vote, then I also want a license to be a parent, because I think that's the most dangerous thing in this world for a person to do.
 
No. Oh, God, please no.

Referendum is such an attractive idea on paper, but then you look at places like California and you realize that a great majority of their deep problems are precisely due to referendum.

No - their deep problems are due to referendum without adding taxes to pay for government programs.

We can have it so that any federal referendum that increases costs to the government also includes what will be taxed in order to pay for it.

I think that's better than what we have now - elected legislators who pass laws but add all these exemptions to interests that lobby them and pay them for those tax exemptions.
 
No - their deep problems are due to referendum without adding taxes to pay for government programs.

We can have it so that any federal referendum that increases costs to the government also includes what will be taxed in order to pay for it.

I think that's better than what we have now - elected legislators who pass laws but add all these exemptions to interests that lobby them and pay them for those tax exemptions.
It could be tweaked, fair point, but no offense... having lived most of my life in California, and seeing what has happened, it would take a lot of convincing to get me to consider that kind of system.
 
It could be tweaked, fair point, but no offense... having lived most of my life in California, and seeing what has happened, it would take a lot of convincing to get me to consider that kind of system.

No offense taken.

I would even go so far as to say that such legislation that requires funding done via federal referendum must be paid for by a national sales tax.

That way it is uniform and it is regressive and it targets everybody rather than a certain group of people. And that way everybody feels the burden of that referendum directly.
 
Note that I'm not asking if uninformed citizens should be allowed to vote. I'm just whether you think they should vote.

Absolutely they should vote! They're over 18 and their opinion counts just as much as anybody elses.
 
Which is why voting should be more populist, not less.

And why I advocate a method to pass federal law via referendum.

Let the people themselves the chance to write legisalation so that we can get laws in place that won't be blocked by wealthy people paying campaign contributions to our Congressmen.

You think this country isn't dysfunctional enough? You want more legislation? What's wrong with having smaller governments get more power so that we actually have a chance of influencing politics?
 
Except a government's sole concern is not production - rather, it also includes the well-being of its citizenry. And shareholders in a company are not inherently concerned with the well-being of the people. Rather, corporations are more concerned with generating profit - even at the cost it incurs to their employees and consumers.

Which is why it is totally unethical to develop a government system based on corporations.

Production ensures our well being. If you have no production, then you're stuck with your current level of scarcity. We should want to try to end scarcity as much as possible.

After all, that was how the Republic of Rome was organized and it was the most successful country that has ever existed on this planet.

Fixed it for you.
 
You think this country isn't dysfunctional enough? You want more legislation? What's wrong with having smaller governments get more power so that we actually have a chance of influencing politics?

So let me get this straight.

You want people to exert more influence over politics by reducing their ability to vote.

Is that what you just told me?
 
Production ensures our well being. If you have no production, then you're stuck with your current level of scarcity. We should want to try to end scarcity as much as possible.

I didn't say production wasn't important.

I said production wasn't the only criteria a government should consider.

It's okay to have nuance and be diversified in what people care about.

Fixed it for you.

Really? Is that why there was constant political instability, civil wars, assassinations, invasions, abuse of people via slavery?

I can't really call a nation to be economically successful when a militant dictator decides to pay for his tyranny by killing the citizens of that state and seizing their property.
 
So let me get this straight.

You want people to exert more influence over politics by reducing their ability to vote.

Is that what you just told me?

If someone can't make enough money to buy a house, they're probably not the brightest crayon in the box.
 
If someone can't make enough money to buy a house, they're probably not the brightest crayon in the box.

Or there's a real estate bubble in the housing market that have inflated the price of houses out the income ranges of people with certain occupations.
 
Or there's a real estate bubble in the housing market that have inflated the price of houses out the income ranges of people with certain occupations.

If they were a "brighter crayon" they would have picked a better profession.

Wouldn't this be a better country if the brightest Americans selected the brightest to be in Congress?
 
If they were a "brighter crayon" they would have picked a better profession.

Wouldn't this be a better country if the brightest Americans selected the brightest to be in Congress?

And if the brightest Americans got paid the most.

But there's no law in the universe that says that how much money you make is an indicator of your intelligence.
 
So let me get this straight.

You want people to exert more influence over politics by reducing their ability to vote.

Is that what you just told me?

I want less people voting in elections because those without property have been voting to destroy capital accumulation. I want more control at the local level so that we have more control over our governance and so we can actually see the results of policies and they personally affect us.
 
I didn't say production wasn't important.

I said production wasn't the only criteria a government should consider.

It's okay to have nuance and be diversified in what people care about.

Production is increasing material well-being. Anything else isn't the role of the state (and government should get its grubby hands out of influencing production).

Really? Is that why there was constant political instability, civil wars, assassinations, invasions, abuse of people via slavery?

I can't really call a nation to be economically successful when a militant dictator decides to pay for his tyranny by killing the citizens of that state and seizing their property.

I'm not saying it was perfect, I'm just saying that it lasted longer than any other government in history.
 
I'll do you one better. Those without property should not be voting.

Well, then the people who don't get to vote shouldn't have to pay any taxes, nor should they have to follow any of the laws.
 
Well, then the people who don't get to vote shouldn't have to pay any taxes, nor should they have to follow any of the laws.

None of us should have to pay taxes. :)
 
None of us should have to pay taxes. :)

Well, then, why not advocate that there be a Constitutional Amendment against taxes, and still allow everyone to vote?

You completely ignore the right of people to govern themselves through representation simply because the wealthy are taxed 'too much' in your mind. I think that is outrageous. You may think it is outrageous that the wealthy are taxed too much, but I am appalled that you think that trumps the rights of citizens to govern themselves. It quite simply doesn't. You would have absolutely no right to expect adults who have no representation to agree to follow the laws. They rightly would not consider themselves to be bound by the social contract.
 
I want less people voting in elections because those without property have been voting to destroy capital accumulation. I want more control at the local level so that we have more control over our governance and so we can actually see the results of policies and they personally affect us.

So you want to destroy that ability for those without property to prosper, and for them to become enslaved to those who do.

Even though ownership of property is no indicator of good governance.
 
Production is increasing material well-being. Anything else isn't the role of the state (and government should get its grubby hands out of influencing production).

Not in and of itself, as there are very many facets of the human condition - such raising a family - that have nothing to do with production.

I'm not saying it was perfect, I'm just saying that it lasted longer than any other government in history.

Only in name.
 
Back
Top Bottom