Voting should be a Privilege, not a Right

I have to disagree with most of your post Schrodinger.

Hazzy no. Just no. In my honest opinion, you are the last person who should tell other people that they shouldn't vote.

Ad hominem?

And to everyone else, who can only think in terms of Republicans and Democrats, no, just no.

Well, we talk about Nader a lot...

After taking four years of AP-level political science courses, I've realized how corrupt American politics is. Rather than the early 1900's when Teddy Roosevelt reigned in big business under the power of the federal government, big business has come to dictate governmental policy to the point of political corruption and money tradeoffs.

This was new to you? I mean, with major corporations controlling the airwaves, and TV the American pastime, what do you expect?

Also bipartisan politics has our country locked so that the President can be repeatedly vetoed by Congress which usually maintains a 50/50 ratio in Senate. So even if Obama has a new healthcare plan that he plans to instill, it will never go past Congress if they vote along "party lines."

You're wrong in this aspect. This is how corrupted the system has become; the legislature is supposed to propose the laws, not the president. The president is the executive, and is only supposed to enforce the laws that the legislature passes. But then again, it has never been this way... but if the president had almost limitless powers, we'd screw up checks and balances and we'd have ourselves a dictatorship.

Additionally, Obama's plan to instill his new healthcare plan is to have business owners spend out of their own pocket in order to pay for a portion of the worker's healthcare. McCain who is a "modern Republican" which is to "favor big business" intends not to have business owners spend out of their pockets to pay for their worker's healthcare. I'm not sure if I agree with either Obama or McCain on many issues. They both seem to have been twisted by big business and don't have the charm that I'm looking for that was present in early 1900s presidents.

Did you know that the presidents in the early 1900s also happened to be white supremacists? You can take a look at how "they reined in big business" but they still had the problems of their times.

Voting is a right, not a privilege.

If the population of USA doesn't know anything about their candidates, then do something with it. I don't know what you guys do to teach your students about politics, but here in Norway, we have 4-5 years with obligatory political studies before you have the right to vote.

Edit: Not 4-5 years with just political studies, in case you wonder.

Correction: Voting is somewhat of a privilege, and somewhat of a right, but above all, it is a duty.

This is a very lulzy thread. It hardly seems to merit discussion. All I'm going to say about the topic is that you're going the wrong way. We've been expanding the number of people who can vote since the beginning, and you want to make it so most people can't vote? Also, I doubt you'd be very pleased with the outcome - if I had to guess, I'd guess that all the presidents elected with that system would be Republicans. (That just made me think of Hillary's voting base and how she would have a snowflake's chance in hell if we had that system. That brings a smile to my face.)

Are you implying that Republicans are bad? And in any case, both parties would adjust to the conservative tilt. They're not idiots you know.

Also, it annoys me when people hate on charisma. That's actually one of the most important qualities in a president. Their job is basically to convince everyone to agree with them, and the way to do that is to be a good speaker. In case nobody's told you yet, presidents don't make laws.

IMHO firm grasp on political issues and experience is more important than charisma. Not surprising which candidate I am voting for in the elections then?

It is true, only have two parties is easier. But you know whats even easier than that? Having only one party, one monarch, one dictator. But democracy is about hearing more than a couple of voices.

I take it from your sarcasm that you think the more parties, the better. But in practice, that would put power in the hands of extremists on wedge issues.

Why you arrogant little...

I take offense at that, surprisingly , if you take a good look at a map of the world, there are actually parts of it THAT DON'T fall under the command of America that are easily just as 'free' as the americas.

More ad hominem? And believe it or not, the US still has significant influence over European democracies, more than any individual prime minister or president of an individual democracy there.

From the first part of your post, I assume you'll be giving up your right to vote then?

Attacking the person != attacking the idea. Please refrain from attacking the OP.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how it works in America, but here in part of the world that apparently isn't free, the idea of taking away peoples right to vote, is at least in my opinion, a very outdated idea, it would seem to me it wouldn't be a DEMOCRACY if you chose if people could vote or not. Isn't it supposed to be a decision made by EVERYONE in the country, as one of the core ideas?

Though the concept seems outdated, I would support it, but for one reason: who determines who is qualified to vote? I don't think there will ever be a satisfactory answer to that question, so leaving it as it is would be the only viable option.

Brandini, you're not getting the point. I dunno about whatever country they're in, but here in Kiwiland, George W. Bush has no power. He's not the leader of this country.


And I kinda agree, there are many people who probably shouldn't be able to vote, but a: there's no real way to test this, and b: It's pretty undemocratic.


(On that note, I think democracy kinda fails as a system of government, but I have yet to figure out a better system that doesn't involve super intelligent robots)

Democracy is the method that has been working for quite a while. As soon as you propse a better solution, we might be able to test it. But how can something be more fair than one man, one vote? The solution is escaping my mind, but it might be out there. Keep looking.