Change the voting age?

[Bodi]

Raising the voting and drafting age and requiring a test to vote as you suggest, it wont happen now or ever.

Might not. Doesn't mean the could and should not.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Might not. Doesn't mean the could and should not.

It most certainly could not and it most certainly should not.

 

[Bodi]

It most certainly could not and it most certainly should not.

Could not? No idea how laws work, I see...

Should not? I don't like the idea of sending basically kids to war... or kids voting... or stupid or ignorant and uneducated people voting.

You are cool with that. All good.

 

[Oberleutnant]

Age 16~17-
Given the right to take part in election, not compulsory

Age 18~Over
Compulsory

 

[DebateChallenge]

Could not? No idea how laws work, I see...

Should not? I don't like the idea of sending basically kids to war... or kids voting... or stupid or ignorant and uneducated people voting.

You are cool with that. All good.

And what exactly is a kid? Is a 21 year old a kid? How about a 25 year old?

As for being educated, voting is a right guaranteed by the constitution. Requiring an education to vote would be unconstitutional as it would make voting into a privilege not a right.

I do know how laws work, do you? NYRA will see to it that your ideas never come to be.

 

[Arjay81]

A great example of why a test should be required is the above quoted post.

How about this alternative to your hate:

Ban all foreigners from posting concerning the internal workings of this country.

Make them provide proof of intelligence.

Make them prove that they are capable of reason.

Just as valid as your rants and bigotry and refusal to admit to and recognize truth and facts.

 

[Arjay81]

When I was in school I don't remember any teachers being particularly liberal. From time to time we would discuss issues such as gun control whereas most students believed people should be allowed to own guns, which is a very conservative position to take, while teachers more or less remained neutral. On just about all the issues, abortion, flag burning, defense, teachers were mostly neutral although they mentioned the pros and cons of each side.

When you were in school you probably thought your teachers new what they were talking about and could not recognize liberalism if it bit you.

 

[Arjay81]

That could've happened. Although it is a very poor and improper way to take polls it makes sense that some poll takers might avoid people that they think will mark off certain options on the poll that they're against. As it is, I know a few things about polls. I used to major in sociology in which poll taking is a big part of, so I know that polls are all too often inaccurate.

Then you also realize that any poll can be driven towards a desired answer by the way questions are framed and asked. I trust no poll at all, especially one that claim over whelming evidence for their position.

 

[Arjay81]

and just because you assert something doesn't make it true.

While I'm sure you could come up with an internet site that would support your assertion, that still wouldn't prove it. I can come up with internet sites that show that the Earth is flat, that the attack of 9/11 was an inside job, that we didn't really land on the moon, that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that chemtrails are real, and that vaccines really do cause autism. Those sites don't make any of that true, of course. There are no credible sites showing any of the above, nor are there any showing that the schools are indoctrinating children on some left wing ideology.

Then equally, you are admitting that there are no viable sites supporting your own claims.

Nice of you to admit that.

 

[Dittohead not!]

When you were in school you probably thought your teachers new what they were talking about and could not recognize liberalism if it bit you.

I'll bet they new about homonyms anyway.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Raise the voting age to 70. That will keep Medicare and Social Security safe, and will ensure that voters have more life experience. Wisdom comes with age, after all. Our oligarchy isn't working out so well. Let's try a gerontocracy for a while.

 

[Bodi]

How about this alternative to your hate:

Ban all foreigners from posting concerning the internal workings of this country.

Make them provide proof of intelligence.

Make them prove that they are capable of reason.

Just as valid as your rants and bigotry and refusal to admit to and recognize truth and facts.

That is going too far... making a Pledge requirement sounds good.

 

[Arjay81]

I'll bet they new about homonyms anyway.

Now your position rests on what you would bet one? You lose.

 

[Arjay81]

That is going too far... making a Pledge requirement sounds good.

Once again, what you want is irrelevant since you don't live here. Stick to screwing up your own country and leave ours alone.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Now your position rests on what you would bet one? You lose.

I still bet one that the teachers new the difference between homonyms.

 

[Arjay81]

I still bet one that the teachers new the difference between homonyms.

If you have the money to lose, go ahead. I would be surprised if they knew proper grammar or how to even spell.

 

[JasperL]

Raise the voting age
Raise the draft age
Require a test to vote

I agree - let's include a little bit of history, such as a one question test that covers the 'tests to vote' used by whites in the Jim Crow south to arbitrarily deny black citizens the right to vote.

Question: "Did the white majority in the South use arbitrary citizenship tests to systematically deny blacks the right to vote?"

Answer "yes" and you can proceed to the voting booth. Answer "No" or "I don't know" and you can try again next election!! I approve!

More seriously, a citizenship test to determine whether we're eligible to vote is a really, really terrible, awful, stupid, reckless, unworkable idea. Who are we trying to exclude from voting? People with low IQ (and if so, how low, exactly, is too low to vote) or just those who aren't following current events, or who haven't bothered to research the candidates and their positions and how well those candidates' positions line up with their own? The latter is what I'd like people to do before voting, but that test would be highly specific to each of the candidates on the ballot, and an enormous mess with each election - primary, then the general, etc.

And what would the test cover? Who would design these tests? How would we evaluate these tests for effectiveness - in other words, how will we know if the tests 'work' in some way that benefits society as a whole? For example, I'd like to include a question, "Do tax rate cuts pay for themselves with higher revenue" and exclude from voting anyone who answers "Yes" to that question. If we exclude voters who believe that nonsense, society would be better off because it's akin to grown adults selecting leaders who tell us Santa Clause is real. Such people should not be voting! I suspect, however, that Republicans would oppose such a question on the test. So how do we decide which questions are used to cull the undeserving from the voter rolls?

 

[Bodi]

I agree - let's include a little bit of history, such as a one question test that covers the 'tests to vote' used by whites in the Jim Crow south to arbitrarily deny black citizens the right to vote.

Question: "Did the white majority in the South use arbitrary citizenship tests to systematically deny blacks the right to vote?"

Answer "yes" and you can proceed to the voting booth. Answer "No" or "I don't know" and you can try again next election!! I approve!

More seriously, a citizenship test to determine whether we're eligible to vote is a really, really terrible, awful, stupid, reckless, unworkable idea. Who are we trying to exclude from voting? People with low IQ (and if so, how low, exactly, is too low to vote) or just those who aren't following current events, or who haven't bothered to research the candidates and their positions and how well those candidates' positions line up with their own? The latter is what I'd like people to do before voting, but that test would be highly specific to each of the candidates on the ballot, and an enormous mess with each election - primary, then the general, etc.

And what would the test cover? Who would design these tests? How would we evaluate these tests for effectiveness - in other words, how will we know if the tests 'work' in some way that benefits society as a whole? For example, I'd like to include a question, "Do tax rate cuts pay for themselves with higher revenue" and exclude from voting anyone who answers "Yes" to that question. If we exclude voters who believe that nonsense, society would be better off because it's akin to grown adults selecting leaders who tell us Santa Clause is real. Such people should not be voting! I suspect, however, that Republicans would oppose such a question on the test. So how do we decide which questions are used to cull the undeserving from the voter rolls?

Just easy stuff to determine a basic foundational knowledge. Some stuff everybody is supposed to learn in high school in history and government.

 

[JasperL]

Just easy stuff to determine a basic foundational knowledge. Some stuff everybody is supposed to learn in high school in history and government.

LOL, just like in the Jim Crow south!

With you it's always hard to tell when you're serious or having fun. Hopefully this is a case where you're having fun. eace

 

[Bodi]

LOL, just like in the Jim Crow south!

With you it's always hard to tell when you're serious or having fun. Hopefully this is a case where you're having fun. eace

Ill post some examples later when i get to my computer...

 

[JasperL]

Ill post some examples later when i get to my computer...

OK, and when you post your examples, can you explain the point of testing voters on that stuff? I don't see a point myself....

I'd care more whether Voter Bob understands the issues of the day and where a candidate stands on them, and the trade-offs inherent in the opposing positions, than what he can regurgitate about HS civics. Someone who gets the civics right, but still believes for example that tax rate cuts pay for themselves, shouldn't be voting IMO, assuming we're going to start attaching arbitrary knowledge tests to the right to vote.

 

[Bodi]

OK, and when you post your examples, can you explain the point of testing voters on that stuff? I don't see a point myself....

I'd care more whether Voter Bob understands the issues of the day and where a candidate stands on them, and the trade-offs inherent in the opposing positions, than what he can regurgitate about HS civics. Someone who gets the civics right, but still believes for example that tax rate cuts pay for themselves, shouldn't be voting IMO, assuming we're going to start attaching arbitrary knowledge tests to the right to vote.

Tests won't work most likely... but I still think there should be a bare minimum that people should know if they are to vote.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Tests won't work most likely... but I still think there should be a bare minimum that people should know if they are to vote.

So, bring back literacy tests?

Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation) were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.

Literacy test - Wikipedia

 

[Bodi]

So, bring back literacy tests?

I did not say that... I said institute knowledge tests...

 

[Dittohead not!]

I did not say that... I said institute knowledge tests...

That might not be such a bad idea, but can you imagine the outcry? Why, we're disenfranchising the entire population of xx!