Voting should be a Privilege, not a Right

The President of America is the leader of the free world - He should not be chosen by ignorant, uneducated people. I am not suggesting a literacy test, as the South once did, but a way to measure how informed they are.
If you're going to vote in an election, you should know everything the candidates, what they believe, and their past. Yes, mot of this information is public, but very few care enough to find it.
Ignorant voters are a hazard. "Oh, this candidate will lower taxes, I don't like paying money" isn't a very good basis for a vote. Did the voter think about what lowered taxes would mean? Does the voter know his taxes will be cut? *coughBushcough*

Discuss. :]

I find that throwing in your opinions about presidents and your political beliefs causes enemies. But I do believe there should be some sort of quiz or something to vote, but the constitution gives the right to everyone, not the privileged.

It also made each Black man worth 3/5 of a vote. That got changed. :>

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.

How will they know who they want if they don't research them? ._.
Look at Bush's campains. Fear and ignorance are the only reasons he won. (Ignoring the whole recount stuff cause I don't want to get into that. xD)

Also, flame on.
http://www.basilmarket.com/forum/801410/0//

How will they know who they want if they don't research them? ._.
Look at Bush's campains. Fear and ignorance are the only reasons he won. (Ignoring the whole recount stuff cause I don't want to get into that. xD)

Also, flame on.
http://www.basilmarket.com/forum/801410/0//

oh jeez NOT Basil ..Well from what I previously said, they'll just listen to their campaigns & their "bashing of the other party" commercials. That's not REALLY researching to me.

It also made each Black man worth 3/5 of a vote. That got changed. :>

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]
Way to completely ignore the entire context of that compromise - they were still considered slaves back in 1787. Ironically, it would have probably been better to keep them unable to vote during that period, that way the slaveholders would not have been able to use them to their advantage and hold the Presidency, Supreme Court, and House of Reps until the Civil War. [/COLOR]

[SIZE="2"]Hazzy no. Just no. In my honest opinion, you are the last person who should tell other people that they shouldn't vote. And to everyone else, who can only think in terms of Republicans and Democrats, no, just no. 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. 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."

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.[/SIZE]

http://www.southperry.net/forums/showpos...stcount=10

[SIZE="2"]Please don't post after me until you read what I've had to say.[/SIZE]

http://www.southperry.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1327

[SIZE="2"]How dare you mark off people as ignorant. That's obnoxious. Even I have holes that I still need to work out in my political theory. [/SIZE]

But i don't take tests well D=

Aww heck i can't even vote yet... what would the tests be about?

1) Schrodinger scares me. This doesn't count as a post
2) The test would be about the candidates. :x

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.

This country is a democratic republic, not just a republic. The people have power in it, but not complete power since pure democracy is indeed dangerously idiotic.

But I do agree that a lot of Americans are ignorant in poltiical affairs, maybe we should provide some incentives for individuals to research the candidates.

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]
Way to completely ignore the entire context of that compromise - they were still considered slaves back in 1787. Ironically, it would have probably been better to keep them unable to vote during that period, that way the slaveholders would not have been able to use them to their advantage and hold the Presidency, Supreme Court, and House of Reps until the Civil War. [/COLOR]

I don't think you know what the 3/5s compromise was about.

It wasn't about voting, it was about representation. Southern states wanted slaves counted within their population when it came to their representation in government. Other states had the argument that if they aren't citizens of the country (and are, instead, PROPERTY), then the state shouldn't be able to count them as people when they wanted to. Eventually it came to be that each slave was counted as a fraction of a person in deciding governmental representation.

And no, voting is a right, and it should remain a right. As soon as you try to say who can and who cannot vote, you're limiting the democratic process. Frankly, I don't quite like idiotic sheep on either side blindly going to one side or the other, and I also don't like people who would rather vote for a person than another person even if their policy ideas are at odds with the person's own. To be honest, I have a strong desire to hunt down every single Clinton supporter who would rather have McCain than Obama and punch them in the face. I would rather have McCain than Obama myself, but pineapple... how the hell can you go from a woman who is just shy of socialist to the other end, antisocialist and in support of the war. It makes no pineappleing sense at all. But I digress... the point is "how do you decide who gets to vote?" You can't.

And yeah, if you don't know who Barr is you have no right telling people they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

ps

The test would be about the candidates. :x

How the hell would you fairly supply a test that would not be biased in favor of the big 2? And what of supporters who have little idea about the candidates but are loyal to their party? What about people who know things about the candidates, but don't really know anything about their policies?

pps did not know there were other politics threads here brb gonna go have me a look-see

If forceful education or at least incentives were given out to learn about more the candidates, I doubt America would be controlled by only two parties for much longer.

If forceful education or at least incentives were given out to learn about more the candidates, I doubt America would be controlled by only two parties for much longer.

You'd be surprised what the American populous can wrought.

ps that is definitely a homophonic pun; enjoy, care of your friendly neighborhood afrobean

You'd be surprised what the American populous can wrought.

ps that is definitely a homophonic pun; enjoy, care of your friendly neighborhood afrobean

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.

I don't think you know what the 3/5s compromise was about.

It wasn't about voting, it was about representation. Southern states wanted slaves counted within their population when it came to their representation in government. Other states had the argument that if they aren't citizens of the country (and are, instead, PROPERTY), then the state shouldn't be able to count them as people when they wanted to. Eventually it came to be that each slave was counted as a fraction of a person in deciding governmental representation.

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]
Ignore my post, I'm retarded at night. Reading his post made me think of voting rights for blacks / slaves - history is just a jumbled pineappleing mess in my mind late at night. Would have been better to simply state that it would have been better had they not been counted as people at all.[/COLOR]

Letting only the "smart educated" people in a country vote doesn't fix the problem of people who vote for someone for the wrong reasons...

There will always be retarded smart people around the world with retarded ways of choosing their political candidate for president / prime-minister for whatever subjective unimportant selfish reason... Education won't fix that...

That's what "democracy for everyone" is about...

Democracy not a perfect system, but it's still the best one available...

I'm amazed no one commented on the first proposition of the thread:

The President of America is the leader of the free world

... lol. America doesn't even deign it necessary to listen to the rest of the free world (cuban blockade, iraq, etc.) I'd hardly call it the leader. More like the bully that everyone just barely tolerates.

If forceful education or at least incentives were given out to learn about more the candidates, I doubt America would be controlled by only two parties for much longer.

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.