Voting should be a Privilege, not a Right

There's some old quote, something like "democracy is a terrible system of government, but it's the best one we've got".
As far as I'm concerned, the role of government is to protect and support the nation and its people. And let's face it, most people who vote, would vote for something that favours them personally rather than what's best for the nation and all its people. On the other hand, something like a dictatorship, where one person says what's best for the nation, tends to result in that one person becoming power hungry and it winds up worse off anyway. Really, there is no "perfect" system of government, but democracy seems to be doing the job fine for now anyway.

And so, superintelligent robots are my best answer. >


Oh, someone said earlier that countries with multiple parties tend to fail or something like that. New Zealand uses a system that depends on multiple parties, it works fine.

EDIT: As far as I know, most people who don't vote, do so out of apathy or laziness.

But how you get educated would make a big difference. If you have a liberal education or upbringing, you will vote Democratic. If you have a conservative education or upbringing, you will vote Republican. Having a even more systematic form of education might help them get better jobs, but it certainly will not affect politics in a positive way.

Before I say anything else, a lot of you jumped right to just dismissing the TS and acting like this was really going to happen?

Seriously, there's no reason to get angry, unless you consider yourself one of those "ignorant" people who shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Also, unless you're in a dire need of a self-esteem boost, we don't need to know, nor care how much poli-sci courses you took in high school.
It should be common knowledge that politics are easy to follow and knowledge based on experience, not intelligence.

On to the original idea of the topic (which has now been kinda skewed), I think it's a great idea, of course, but I mean, look at America. A good majority of the upcoming generation has proven themselves to be a "bandwagon" full of people who don't think for themselves. Now people are probably going to call me prejudiced, but this is similar to the idea of women voting for Hilary Clinton and minorities voting for Barack Obama. Seriously, those who are judging their vote based on skin color or gender should just not vote, isn't it for the better? If you wanna throw in that card you might as well throw Oprah or Chris Brown in the race, too, and who says they'd be good presidents?

The bottom line is candidates should be chosen based on the beliefs you share with them and their ability to communicate with just about anyone. Well, you could slap on a random percent and say over 50% of all voters don't know anything past the name and party of a candidate and probably be right. But voting will always be a right and never a privilege. This isn't the 17-1800's.

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.



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?

For the first point, I was implying that it doesn't sound like the thread starter likes Republicans, not that I don't like Republicans. I probably agree with them on more things than I agree with the Democrats on, but they've been annoying me recently. That's also completely beside the point. I agree with you that both parties would become more conservative.

For the second point, of course you need to understand the issues and all that as well (note that I said *one* of the most important qualities), but I think it's hard to be an effective president without a good degree of charisma. (Your second sentence confuses me because based on how this election's been framed, it would seem like you'd be for McCain. That doesn't really make sense though, because legislative experience != executive experience.)

I pretty much agree with everything you said in that post though. Hooray!

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

This isn't a debate. It's one person saying "some people shouldn't be allowed to vote" and this person ironically falls into his own category of people who wouldn't be allowed to vote if he had his way. Is it so bad of us to call him on this and make fun of it? I think it's really funny that someone would propose this sort of an idea, but then fall under the people he's suggesting we should stop in the first place.

Are they disenfranchised?

I'd say that this combined with laziness are the reasons for the low turnouts at the polls. I myself am 20, but I haven't ever voted before and there's a good chance I won't come November. Why should I? Take a couple hours out of my day, and I can say with confidence that my one vote wouldn't make a difference... Especially after the 2000 election, I see how things are: close turnouts would have the two sides go to an external source rather than counting votes and taking the one with the minor lead. It also doesn't help that the popular vote doesn't directly choose the President; what does a single vote matter when that one vote isn't even counted directly?

This isn't a debate. It's one person saying "some people shouldn't be allowed to vote" and this person ironically falls into his own category of people who wouldn't be allowed to vote if he had his way. Is it so bad of us to call him on this and make fun of it? I think it's really funny that someone would propose this sort of an idea, but then fall under the people he's suggesting we should stop in the first place.

Yet if I didn't fall into the category, I would be yelled at for proposing an idea that that eliminates those other than me.
:[
Not fail. D:

Yet if I didn't fall into the category, I would be yelled at for proposing an idea that that eliminates those other than me.
:[
Not fail. D:

No, either way you fail both ways.

As stated earlier here, your solution just brings up more complicated problems.

legislative experience != executive experience

Executive experience > legislative experience > other experience

For the second point, of course you need to understand the issues and all that as well (note that I said *one* of the most important qualities), but I think it's hard to be an effective president without a good degree of charisma.

McCain isn't as good as working large crowds as Obama is, I have to admit. While an extra bit of charisma is definitely an asset to Obama, I prefer McCain's experience in making deals across the political aisle (definitely useful for presidents), something that I haven't seen in Obama. And besides, it's not as if McCain isn't charismatic. He's just not as charismatic.

It may be a matter of personal preference though. I do see where you are coming from: I just watched Obama's acceptance speech and it was very well done. Such oratory is useful for the presidency, no doubt.

I'd say that this combined with laziness are the reasons for the low turnouts at the polls. I myself am 20, but I haven't ever voted before and there's a good chance I won't come November. Why should I? Take a couple hours out of my day, and I can say with confidence that my one vote wouldn't make a difference... Especially after the 2000 election, I see how things are: close turnouts would have the two sides go to an external source rather than counting votes and taking the one with the minor lead. It also doesn't help that the popular vote doesn't directly choose the President; what does a single vote matter when that one vote isn't even counted directly?

While almost everyone agrees that the Electoral College has to be reformed, no one has agreed on how to do so. And about voting being useless- if you do care strongly about one of the candidates, you can always campaign for him.

---

Back on topic: for elections, I think it'd be nice if voters could list at least one platform for at least two political parties before they enter the polling booth. That would lower turnout though.

And why don't they vote? Are they disenfranchised? Hardly ever. Do they not know how to vote? it's rather simple unless they're illiterate, in which case they probably don't know enough about the issues or the candidates to make a meaningful choice. Are they too poor to take a day off to vote? The government requires employers to give them a day of paid leave to vote (if I remember correctly).

And if they don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.

I'm a year off from voting age, but even if I were of age I doubt I would.

I live in Texas, and I find it highly unlikely that the state would not light up red in the Electoral College. It is an incredibly large state with many very conservative people (remember, G. W. Bush was the Governor of Texas), and any vote I provide in any direction would be effectively meaningless.

Obama is definitely a crowd favorite on the media (this includes the opinions of people in the places of the internet I view, even before the DNC), but I don't see him taking a state like Texas, even if he could win the overall election.

There's some old quote, something like "democracy is a terrible system of government, but it's the best one we've got".

[SIZE="2"]You're not from the United States so you don't know this, but America isn't a democracy. It's become an oligarchy. Just look at how much President's waste in order to advertise. Hillary Clinton had the largest debt ever accumulation, what was it, roughly 30 million? But even Hillary didn't have the most expensive campaign trail compared to other Presidential candidates like Mitt Romney. McCain and Obama are also "fundraising" and getting chummy with "big business" in order to fund the final legs of their campaign trail. When they finally get elected, "big business" is going to want some support from Uncle Sam for all that money it loaned during the campaign trail.

This isn't a democracy. It's a bloody capitalistic venture for the rich. If we put all the campaign money presidential candidates burn into social security, American debt, and future resource spending; our future would be a hell less bleak.

Additionally, our society is so ignorant that we BUY INTO THIS IDEOLOGY OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. We haven't been able to progress as a country because we've been electing the same corrupt bastards every single time. There has never-ever been an outside party candidate to be elected as President simply because people are too lazy to go beyond tabloid conspiracies and their television sets. Unfortunately because Americans are too stupid, we buy into this corrupted-system every single time because politicians know that television advertisements, phone calls, and talk-show appearances are the only things that Americans can process. It makes me feel disgusted as an American. Money talks. Money wins. Money rules. [/SIZE]

I'm not American, and I'm still disgusted.

Also, Leader of the free world? HA!

I demand my right to vote then. But then again, the best I'll ever be in your country is a legal alien, so nuts to that idea.

This isn't a debate. It's one person saying "some people shouldn't be allowed to vote" and this person ironically falls into his own category of people who wouldn't be allowed to vote if he had his way. Is it so bad of us to call him on this and make fun of it? I think it's really funny that someone would propose this sort of an idea, but then fall under the people he's suggesting we should stop in the first place.


I'd say that this combined with laziness are the reasons for the low turnouts at the polls. I myself am 20, but I haven't ever voted before and there's a good chance I won't come November. Why should I? Take a couple hours out of my day, and I can say with confidence that my one vote wouldn't make a difference... Especially after the 2000 election, I see how things are: close turnouts would have the two sides go to an external source rather than counting votes and taking the one with the minor lead. It also doesn't help that the popular vote doesn't directly choose the President; what does a single vote matter when that one vote isn't even counted directly?

gota ask ya bean you think getting rid of the electoral college would be a better shot? I mean your vote is still significant because it is one vote closer to getting majority which is the entire state, so in some point a single vote can have the power of an entire state however unlikely and why not take a couple hours out of your day if your being paid for it (if your working), and to the OP .[SIZE="7"]NO. HELL. pineappleING. NO[/SIZE]

What homophobic pun?

It really does suprise me what the populous can "wrought", we can have great leaders in our senate and white house, but we have also elected people like Bush, Nixon, and Larry Craig.

Bush did what he was elected to do. In my opinion he did a pretty good job.

Less media is what you need.

Bush did what he was elected to do. In my opinion he did a pretty good job.

Less media is what you need.

not gona happen, its sad really you have the internet which is a satisfactory resource in its own right but it isn't utilized (although if you had all your info given to you by some zealot blogger I hope you get in a car accident while trying to go to the polls)

Bush did what he was elected to do. In my opinion he did a pretty good job.

Less media is what you need.

o.0
Media sides with Bush more than less of the time.
How does he need less?

Bush was elected to run the nation. Instead he fucks it up. Explain to me how he did what he was suppose to do.

o.0
Media sides with Bush more than less of the time.
How does he need less?

Bush was elected to run the nation. Instead he pineapples it up. Explain to me how he did what he was suppose to do.

Depends on your own opinion, he did have it rough though but thats apart of being the president, i think gore would have done slightly better (not so much on iraq) but Kerry scared the hell out of me, its like Palin right now

Yay for new drama:

The Bush Administration planned 9/11.
There would have been no 9/11 if Gore got in.

wtp? I've heard that conspiracy theory, and I think it's full of pumpernickel.

As for voting, it's been a right ever since it was written into the Bill of Rights. Why change now? (yeah I know the Deep South had the literacy tests but they were strongly racist in those days.)

not gona happen, its sad really you have the internet which is a satisfactory resource in its own right but it isn't utilized (although if you had all your info given to you by some zealot blogger I hope you get in a car accident while trying to go to the polls)

Im not rly sure where your even coming from. So I'm gonna leave that one alone.

o.0
Media sides with Bush more than less of the time.
How does he need less?

Bush was elected to run the nation. Instead he pineapples it up. Explain to me how he did what he was suppose to do.

Media actually tends to be more on the side of the population. *pist* thats how they attract to their viewers.

He was placed in difficult situations. The last major attack on the US was Pearl Harbor, and the extent of getting involved in that was much greater. Iraq was needed, by the american people to make themselves feel better and the Iraqis who were at the will of a corrupt dictator. Bush had something like 70% support to go to war following Sept 11, 40% after the first month in war, and the last poll 5 yrs after Sept 11, he had only 10% support. Americans can't make up their minds. So the media has opposed Bush since the American populous found out war was bad.

Im not rly sure where your even coming from. So I'm gonna leave that one alone.



Media actually tends to be more on the side of the population. *pist* thats how they attract to their viewers.

He was placed in difficult situations. The last major attack on the US was Pearl Harbor, and the extent of getting involved in that was much greater. Iraq was needed, by the american people to make themselves feel better and the Iraqis who were at the will of a corrupt dictator. Bush had something like 70% support to go to war following Sept 11, 40% after the first month in war, and the last poll 5 yrs after Sept 11, he had only 10% support. Americans can't make up their minds. So the media has opposed Bush since the American populous found out war was bad.

Major Network stations played 393 interviews about the war before Congress declared it.
3 were anti-war.
Bush controls the media.
Bush's administration planned 9/11, Iraq had nothing to do with it.