Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TM875
Wow...this question actually led me to more thought than I at first believed that it would.
Should there be a basic intelligence / literacy / civics test before voting...eh, that's a pretty slippery slope. There might be a person out there who can't read due to pervious life circumstances, but still has an intent interest in our nation. On the other hand, there might be someone who went through 11th grade Government class, knows that there's 9 people on the Supreme Court, but has no clue as to what type of person will be chosen should the president be forced to choose one.
~Side note: This was what scared me the most during the 2004 election. I knew for certain that the newly elected president would be choosing at least 1 Supreme Court justice in his term, and, most likely, the new chairman of the Federal Reserve. /end note
I believe that there should be a general association with the issues of the election. There are far too many people that choose a politician because he "looks honest" or "has a trustworthy face" or "seems like a down-to-earth type of guy". That's total crap, especially in today's news-oriented world. At the very least, there should be a little placard in the polling booth that gives some basic info on the politician's individual platform. I don't care what my president looks like, or whether he shakes the hand of a lot of people - I want a guy that agrees with me on the issues and can actually get things done. Imagine that...
|
Huge difference between giving someone a placard and requiring a literacy test.
(BTW who exactly would pay for these placards and/or tests?.... Hell, we have to cut emergency services, bankrupt our schools and send soldiers over to a war ill equipped, we have a debt so high that we'll never have it paid off in our lifetime or our children's and your wanting to add an expense just so those someone deems intelligent enough can vote. while the others lose their right to vote?)
Voting is a RIGHT..... not a privelege.
I don't know about elsewhere but the newspapers in Ohio cover what the issues are, have pros and cons published: have the candidates listed and where they stand on issues, and so on.
The following is now an overall view of the topic and in no way reflects the above quote I already addressed:
I think it is very elitist and self serving to believe that the majority of people have no idea what is going on. I argue the vast majority do know and the ones who don't vote aren't voting because they feel their voice won't change things.
And why would they feel that way?
Because people like some on this board, want to believe they know more than others what is best and talk down, berate, bully and refuse to listen/read another's viewpoints and refuse to admit that maybe there is some positive in the opposing view.
By getting people into believing their votes don't matter, by getting people to believe how they feel and what they want is irrelevent and to discount them.... not only gets them to not vote but allows your agenda to get through even faster without much fight. But this tactic only lasts a short time before you get enough people mad enough to realize their voice matters and they vote against you.
PS I agree I vote for the candidate best representing my views.... in '00 it was Nader, in '04 it was Kerry, going back in '96 it was Buchanan in the primaries and Clinton in Nov., in '92 it was Clinton.