Voting should be a Privilege, not a Right

I think it seems to me like it might be a good idea to let everyone take a quiz on what they want from a president, and decide what president their vote goes to according to that instead of letting them choose a president simply because they like him. You've probably all used some kind of test like that before, make them actually decide your vote instead of saying 'aw pineapple that, this guy is much more charismatic'.

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.)

I think it seems to me like it might be a good idea to let everyone take a quiz on what they want from a president, and decide what president their vote goes to according to that instead of letting them choose a president simply because they like him. You've probably all used some kind of test like that before, make them actually decide your vote instead of saying 'aw pineapple that, this guy is much more charismatic'.

This is a bit more interesting. I don't think it would work out though, because then the candidates would just do a lot of polls and say they want to do what the majority of the people want. Also, I believe more in voting on a president based on your perception of his judgment and character than on what he (in the gender-neutral sense) claims his policy positions are. Situations change and presidents go back on their promises (or pandering, whichever) once they get into office. In my opinion, that's usually a good thing. You don't want a president who gives out all the corn subsidies in the world because he had to win the Iowa primary.

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.

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.)



This is a bit more interesting. I don't think it would work out though, because then the candidates would just do a lot of polls and say they want to do what the majority of the people want. Also, I believe more in voting on a president based on your perception of his judgment and character than on what he (in the gender-neutral sense) claims his policy positions are. Situations change and presidents go back on their promises (or pandering, whichever) once they get into office. In my opinion, that's usually a good thing. You don't want a president who gives out all the corn subsidies in the world because he had to win the Iowa primary.

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.

I know it probably wouldn't work out, but if it did it would be a very good system imo...

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.

No, they don't make laws, but haven't you ever heard of checks and balances? They can make laws more difficult to pass through Congress.

Speaking of laws, how about an Executive Order? It's not completely apples to apples, but at least it's Granny Smith to Red Delicious.

Two parties is, in fact, way better than having multiple parties. Countries with 5-6 parties usually have the problem that when people are elected to the Parliament, they can't agree on anything because of all the parties have different ways of looking on cases. With only two parties (and one leading person, though I'd rather prefer 2 or the whole party instead), action will be taken instead of doing nothing.

Edit:
@ psychopat: free world is here just another term for the democracy of USA, I assume.

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.

If most of the people are ignorant arses... then, the leader should represent them. Whatever the consequences are. The same if they are people that could pass a fantastic test about anything you could throw in, or people that are good at brushing their teeth.

Want to reflect everyone's thoughts? count everyone.

So..... you're saying that voting should be a privelege not a right? :f6: Then that would mean we have to take that out of the constitution then. Well yeah researching about the candidates is pretty smart instead of just eating up what they say at campaigns & listening to their commercials. I don't think their should be a quiz b/c I believe everyone should just vote for whoever they believe is right for them.

Edit: And nobody really knows what exactly is going to take place when somebody goes into office. They can do a complete 360 to what their "original" plan was. Same goes for the laws.

might not have much to do with the topic, but wouldnt a 360 bring you back to where you started?

might not have much to do with the topic, but wouldnt a 360 bring you back to where you started?

With that note...testing might not actually be a bad idea.(jk)

Oh boy, an Alexander Hamilton >.>

Anyways, who decides how hard the quiz would be? What would be the quiz?

The quiz would also take forever due to the millions of people in America.

Oh boy, an Alexander Hamilton >.>

Anyways, who decides how hard the quiz would be? What would be the quiz?

The quiz would also take forever due to the millions of people in America.

If such a quiz could become constitutional and made, it would be easy to give them. Electronic quizzing booths, sort of like electronic voting booths.

Those who would wish to vote would need to pass the quiz.

I know it probably wouldn't work out, but if it did it would be a very good system imo...

Sorry if I sounded mean about it. It's an interesting idea and it's a lot better than having a test to be able to vote.

No, they don't make laws, but haven't you ever heard of checks and balances? They can make laws more difficult to pass through Congress.

Speaking of laws, how about an Executive Order? It's not completely apples to apples, but at least it's Granny Smith to Red Delicious.

Yeah, they can veto laws and they work with congressmen on what laws are introduced and stuff. And they can issue executive orders and they have some discretion in implementing the laws. The problem is when people act like the president can make laws at his whim. And especially this election cycle, people are acting like charisma is a bad thing. It isn't. It's very important, especially nowadays when people see the president on TV and stuff all the time. Teddy Roosevelt called the presidency a "bully pulpit" for a reason.

The President of America is the leader of the free world

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.

He should not be chosen by ignorant, uneducated people

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


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?

The president no longer has as much power in the world as we did 30 years ago, but we are still a powerful force. Completely dismissing the OP because of that is not right either.

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)

Yes, calling him the leader of the free world is a bit too much(in our current age) but we still have immense political power.

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)

Cheers for Kiwiland! I really do revel in the relative independence of this country from what might be considered "the great America," right down to its non-American-colonial roots. I am patently unversed/unconcerned with politics, so I won't really contribute to the main discussion. However, a thought:

I agree that democracy is imperfect, and from my very "lay" viewpoint will probably ultimately lead downhill. However I would also confidently propose that every system of government is flawed and ultimately leads downhill as well. (As long as imperfect humans people the government, it's bound to be imperfect, as far as I'm concerned.) I do applaud, and follow with mild interest, all the attempts to slow and even reverse that process, but in the 50-year-long-term future I am not terribly optimistic...

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.

Cheers for Kiwiland! I really do revel in the relative independence of this country from what might be considered "the great America," right down to its non-American-colonial roots. I am patently unversed/unconcerned with politics, so I won't really contribute to the main discussion. However, a thought:

I agree that democracy is imperfect, and from my very "lay" viewpoint will probably ultimately lead downhill. However I would also confidently propose that every system of government is flawed and ultimately leads downhill as well. (As long as imperfect humans people the government, it's bound to be imperfect, as far as I'm concerned.) I do applaud, and follow with mild interest, all the attempts to slow and even reverse that process, but in the 50-year-long-term future I am not terribly optimistic...

Exactly, the same reason why Democracy is not perfect is the same reason why Communism doesn't work, its because we are part of the system, we are far from perfect.


Edit: Thunda, Democracy is not perfect, and in presidential elections we do not use pure democracy, we use republicanism. So its not really one vote per man. And a large amount of people do not vote.

And a large amount of people do not vote.

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.

Many people don't vote because they are ignorant and uneducated. This is why I believe education should be an important issue in our country, we are idiots compared to Europe and some Asian countries.