Should people vote on things they do not know about? I'm speaking in the context of a general election for a President, Party, Senator and so on- should a certain level of knowledge be required before one should be able to cast their vote? And what should those limitations be? The field could be politics, economics, psychology... anything you think would improve results and lead to more effective policy decisions. My opinion: |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Better education precedes that which you are suggesting. So no. |
| "But don't cry my friends, we are all the same.Every one of us is a human with "H" capital... and now we are two and one of us has to be shit." -Mr.Freeman |
| Stopping Americans citizens to vote is for the protection of American citizens! - The Simpsons |
Touch me, you filthy casual~ |
| If it was up to me, then people would have to fulfill these requirements in order to vote |
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
| Damn that's racist |
| The reqirements I would say is, they should at least know about the presidents then vote for them because of the way they look. |
JennyEsquire said: I seriously hope you are a troll.2. Be white |
 |
JennyEsquire said: What if you're half white?If it was up to me, then people would have to fulfill these requirements in order to vote |
| [color=#993300] "I commend your courage, but I will show you no mercy."[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlCIPj1ZoM0] [/color] |
| What if you're gray? |
| "But don't cry my friends, we are all the same.Every one of us is a human with "H" capital... and now we are two and one of us has to be shit." -Mr.Freeman |
Kanic said: What if you're gray? Hehe I read that as gay. |
| We're covering that in the "gays adapting kids" thread. Wanna bring it up in here already? |
| "But don't cry my friends, we are all the same.Every one of us is a human with "H" capital... and now we are two and one of us has to be shit." -Mr.Freeman |
Failures said: JennyEsquire said: What if you're half white?If it was up to me, then people would have to fulfill these requirements in order to vote You get half a vote |
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
| My grandmother's first vote was for Truman in 1948 and she had to take a literacy test before she could vote. Not sure why that's such a political hot potato these days. Oh well... |
 |
| Are we talking about the US? Yes there should be voting qualifications. And it's hard to talk about democratic principles in America when not everyone's votes are represented anyways. |
| As a child, I was told that society is a melting pot of talents; knowledge and experience combined to form important alloys that will contribute to mankind. When I got to highschool, however, I thought that it's more like a river in which the water represents our peers while we ourselves are the stones in the river. Constant erosion by mindless majority sheeping has made us lose our unique edge. After I hit the age of 18, I realized that I've been wrong all along. Society is no melting pot. Society is no river. Society is a person, a very skilled rapist, and he has fucked us all. |
JennyEsquire said: Neat.Failures said: JennyEsquire said: What if you're half white?If it was up to me, then people would have to fulfill these requirements in order to vote You get half a vote |
| [color=#993300] "I commend your courage, but I will show you no mercy."[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlCIPj1ZoM0] [/color] |
JennyEsquire said: Failures said: JennyEsquire said: What if you're half white?If it was up to me, then people would have to fulfill these requirements in order to vote You get half a vote You serious? I lol so hard on that, is there even something like half vote? lol |
| Honobono Log - best slice of life short -------------------------------------------- most kawaii loli overlord ---------------------------- Donquixote Doflamingo AMV - Control |
JennyEsquire said: Failures said: JennyEsquire said: What if you're half white?If it was up to me, then people would have to fulfill these requirements in order to vote You get half a vote So a albino gets two? |
 |
| No because those who are very much into politics many times are bigger idiots than people who never bother learning much. What i think should happen is that political parties should be illegal. Everyone should be independent. This might make many to actually pay some attention in what each guy proposes instead of having sheep following a party like it's a god damn football team. Also it will limit corruption because politicians won't play games by putting their party in-frond of of their country and parties won't have a huge money capital to throw away so they can brainwash and buy people. |
| In the US? 1; Prove you understand English and can read. 2; Pass a USCI Naturalization test. 2; Be 13 years or older People who can't pass the first two don't deserve to be voting, I don't give a damn about "but muh freedoms". |
| No, that defeats the whole purpose of having a democracy if only some people are allowed to vote. I doubt it would make a difference anyway, even smart people aren't immune to propaganda. |
 |
Narmy said: No, that defeats the whole purpose of having a democracy if only some people are allowed to vote. I doubt it would make a difference anyway, even smart people aren't immune to propaganda. My brother wasn't allowed to vote for years because he was on probation. In many states you can't vote if you're a felon (keep in mind that you don't need to commit that bad of a crime to be a felon, here a felon could be someone with 29g's of weed) I know in most states you can also be denied voting rights because a quack called you "mentally ill". Democracy my ass. Democracy doesn't equate to "Freedom", democracy is what decided to take away these people's voting rights, because that's what democracy is, if the majority agrees, they can take away a privilege you have that some people believe is a "right". |
AnnoKano said: Should people vote on things they do not know about? I'm speaking in the context of a general election for a President, Party, Senator and so on- should a certain level of knowledge be required before one should be able to cast their vote? And what should those limitations be? I think they should require some sort of test.In this country we have a 10 percent approval rating of congress but yet 90 percent of incumbents are reelected. I bet most of the people who voted against these incumbents actually pay attention to what their elected officials are doing. I think these tests should comprise of the candidate's current views on the issues, past views on the issues and if applicable past votes on the issue or bills they author. |
| And instead of saying something along the lines of "better education" you guys propose even more tests , run by some kind of government affiliated agency. 1)That doesn't solve the problem 2) That opens doors for even more corruption (the examiners would just pass/not pass anyone they feel like it according to their interests).  |
| "But don't cry my friends, we are all the same.Every one of us is a human with "H" capital... and now we are two and one of us has to be shit." -Mr.Freeman |
| Interesting that previously, when people asked similar questions about supporting technocratic governments -which is essentially the same question phrased differently- there seemed to be much more support for the idea than when it's phrased as a question about placing restrictions on voting. Is this discrepancy the result of different people commenting on it, because you have changed your minds, or because you only think about what sounds good without considering the means of achieving it? Interesting also that people still don't recognise that sometimes there is no 'right' answer to a problem and that it largely depends on the collective opinion of the electorate. Anyway, I'd like to respond to some points that have been made. Monad said: No because those who are very much into politics many times are bigger idiots than people who never bother learning much. Idiots in what sense? It seems unlikely that people who are interested in politics would know less about it than the common man. When you ask someone for advice in any other field, you would turn to the expert before the amateur, wouldn't you? Monad said: What i think should happen is that political parties should be illegal. Everyone should be independent. This might make many to actually pay some attention in what each guy proposes instead of having sheep following a party like it's a god damn football team. While I can see where you are coming from with this, don't you think you need some kind of balance? Depending on the political system the success of this would vary tremendously- in a parliamentary system I would imagine it could be nothing less than a disaster. Furthermore I'd be worried that such restrictions would result in political power becoming beyond the reach of anyone but the wealthy. You may argue that is already the case to a certain degree, but I think this will make it almost unavoidable. If you do not have money, how will you campaign? How will you be able to support yourself if you dedicate yourself to a campaign and lose? How are you going to co-ordinate your ideas to make them successful. More independent politicians certainly sounds like an idea and I agree about them not following party lines slavishly, but in most cases I think it's actually the best thing to do. Monad said: Also it will limit corruption because politicians won't play games by putting their party in-frond of of their country and parties won't have a huge money capital to throw away so they can brainwash and buy people. Do the parties adopt those traits because of the political system we have, or because those qualities are what will lead to success in elections? ezikialrage said: I think they should require some sort of test.In this country we have a 10 percent approval rating of congress but yet 90 percent of incumbents are reelected. I bet most of the people who voted against these incumbents actually pay attention to what their elected officials are doing. I think these tests should comprise of the candidate's current views on the issues, past views on the issues and if applicable past votes on the issue or bills they author. You don't think the way congress is elected may have something to do with it? If you can only elect the individuals in your own state, you are unable to influence the majority opinion anyway. It's not surprising that this leads to disatisfaction with it as a whole, even if the local congressman has your approval. To be fair I am unfamiliar with how congress works, I simply don't see why what you are saying could be the result of an unintelligent or unqualified electorate. Caze said: In the US? 1; Prove you understand English and can read. 2; Pass a USCI Naturalization test. 2; Be 13 years or older People who can't pass the first two don't deserve to be voting, I don't give a damn about "but muh freedoms". Why should literacy be required? I don't think that being unable to speak English should prevent you from voting, or even why being a naturalised citizen should be important. If you are a resident, why is that not sufficient for voting rights? If you live in the country, you are subject to the laws it passes so why shouldn't you have some influence in what those laws are? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Much as I often think it would be a good thing, in the end I disagree with it because there could never be a suitable test/exam to separate those who should vote and those who "shouldn't". Also, even with this perfect exam you need to decide on what qualifications you need to meet, do they need to know the policies? Do they need to know their candidates past record and the accuracy of his statements? Do they need to be someone who only votes for political reasons, i.e. not just because or because of religion? I do not like it that an ignorant vote counts as much as one formed through a proper look at the facts and weighed up the candidates without prejudice, however taking their votes away is simply wrong, though I am still conflicted as to whether I agree to it anyway. |
| The electoral college decides who is president not the votes cast by the people. #Adam Ruins Everything #voting#trutv http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/index.html?link=paidsearch |
| This sums up the YuYu Hakusho anime well (paraphrased) “you can’t end a good party without someone on the floor.” Yusuke Urameshi |
Jersani said: The electoral college decides who is president not the votes cast by the people. #Adam Ruins Everything #voting#trutv http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/index.html?link=paidsearch Only in the united states. |
| Showing up. Being 18. A citizen of that country. Alive. |
 |
| Living in a developing country, my opinion might be a little different but I strongly believe that there should be certain qualifications for voting; only people who are educated to a certain extent should vote. The illiterate people in the backward areas are usually dependent on their landlords and landlords usually have family ties with politicians. Ultimately, it's the 'family' that decides the fate of polity, not the 'merit'. As for democratic principles, well, the end-goal of democracy is the betterment of a state. And that's all that matters. |
| It's an appealing idea, but I fear it will be abused. The tests that check for qualification can easily be rigged and biased. History is hardly a black-and-white thing. Rely on one source for it and you get a blurry image. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
Kanic said: What if you're gray? Illegal alien |
| Holy bump! As for the OP, did he really just give an opinion on a topic rendered common sense by any 10th grade history textbook? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| While I would like to restrict the people who are allowed to vote to people who are actually capable of understanding what is going on, but that would be a fairly short list of people and as originally stated goes against the democratic principal. An alternative would be to put more restrictions on the people that are being voted for to keep everyone and their grandmother from running in the election. |
| ***** ***** ***** *** Slightly Dangerous  |
| No, that defeats the purpose of the system. |
| a) age restriction - over 15, under 75 b) must be of full legal capacity (apart from capacity restriction due to age) c) must have at least basic interest for good governance. In our country each political party gets 7 € per vote. So good test about c),would be, if every voter could either vote, or take the 7 € in cash. |
katsucats said: Holy bump! As for the OP, did he really just give an opinion on a topic rendered common sense by any 10th grade history textbook? It has been a while since this topic was posted, but since you addressed me directly I wanted to respond to you. I believe that I posted this topic because I wanted to compare the results with another topic posted about technocratic governments, based on my second post in the thread. Complaining that my view is 'common sense'... well it's certainly not a controversial opinion, but surveying this thread indicates that some people do think there should be limits on who is given the vote. I didn't include my opinion because I thought I have a unique or particularly interesting take on the matter, I did it as an act of courtesy (it's irritating when someone asks what everyone else's opinion is without making their own views known). I believe there may even be a rule about it. At any rate it was the comparison between people saying they believe in technocratic government vs technocratic election process that interested me, and I don't think that appears in history books until twelfth grade at the earliest. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
More topics from this board
» Russia bans MALCielord - 5 hours ago |
24 |
by Cute_Marseille
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Short form contentDuckyduck9 - Oct 28 |
36 |
by MegaManSword
»»
1 minute ago |
|
Poll: » How well could you handle horror as a kid?TheBlockernator - 5 hours ago |
9 |
by pk8list
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
» What would your role be in a horror movie?XMGA030 - 48 minutes ago |
3 |
by Zarutaku
»»
24 minutes ago |
|
» You become MAL's owner overnight, what are the first changes you implement?fleurbleue - 7 hours ago |
18 |
by fleurbleue
»»
48 minutes ago |