| User | Post |
|
3:42 am
March 22, 2010
|
SciVille
| | Germantown, MD | |
| posts 38306 | 
|
|
|
During the #16tovote tweeting the other day, an interesting question came up, though one that gets brought up a lot. One of the tweets I sent was "A 16-year-old who knows politics inside and out still can't vote. A 30-year-old who can't name the vice president can. #16tovote" Well, after sending it, I felt a clarification was in order, so I followed it with: "NOT suggesting political knowledge be required for voting rights. Just saying stop using that as an excuse to oppose teen voting. #16tovote" Because otherwise, it seemed I was implying we should test people or something, which of course we aren't necessarily saying either way. The first tweet could be taken to mean that 30yo should not be voting. So I specified what I meant with the follow up, that it was more meant to shoot a hole in that well-worn "argument".
Then had a couple of @ replies from people saying I was "backpedalling" and that it's reasonable to expect political knowledge to be required for voting.
I'm going to come out and say I don't agree with that, that even if someone doesn't even know who or what a president is, he/she should still be allowed to vote. I mean, we say judging voter eligibility by age is bad, but judging by a person's knowledge, education, or intelligence seems at least as bad, and leads too easily to skewing voter eligibility in favor of the wealthier, not to mention extremely easy to skew whatever assessment method to only allow those of certain ideologies to vote. I'm also certain this sort of system would only dissuade more people from voting.
I mean, when you have a US citizen who knows next to nothing about the government or any issues, you should not be saying "why is he even allowed to vote?" You should be asking WHY he knows so little about the government he's supposed to have a hand in controlling to begin with! You don't solve an issue of lack of information by taking away rights!
What, if anything, should be verified, other than being a citizen of the particular election's jurisdiction, in order to allow a given person to vote?
|
|
|
|
|
10:34 am
March 22, 2010
|
robexib
| | |
| posts 4779 | |
|
|
That should be all. After all, we let old idiots vote. Why can't we let the young ones do it, too?
I'm not saying all youth are stupid, but like with any group of people, you'll find the stupid disease has spread a good distance.
|
IMMA FIRIN MAH LAZOR!!!!!!!!
O.o
/¯/___________________________ ____
| BLAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGHHH!|
| BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGHHH|
| BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHH|
_
|
|
|
5:40 pm
March 22, 2010
|
JohnOSevens
| | |
| posts 4762 | |
|
|
you should not be saying "why is he even allowed to vote?" You should be asking WHY he knows so little about the government
It used to be said that a sixth-grade education was enough to understand the political system. I guess sixth grade isn't what it used to be, but I'm not going to derail this into a 'compulsory education sucks' rant. Suffice it to say merely that. Education in this country is a failing prospect and needs to be fixed.
|
–John O' Sevens, Minister of Information
1 Timothy 4:12 wrote: Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.
SciVille wrote: You know, when Burger King ads, with the dad whopper giving the son whopper a "napkin" just in case he needs it, are more realistic about teens and sex, something is seriously wrong!
Slider2641 wrote: MADD wants underage drinking to be as dangerous as possible, so they can claim that it is dangerous.
Jean Rasczak, Starship Troopers wrote: Figuring things out for yourself is the only freedom anyone really has. Use that freedom.
|
|
|
12:27 am
March 24, 2010
|
parbor
| | |
| posts 246 | |
|
|
SciVille;405767 wrote:
What, if anything, should be verified, other than being a citizen of the particular election's jurisdiction, in order to allow a given person to vote?
I'm not sure we should be verifying anything more. I think the discussion needs to be on what voting is for. If voting is about picking the smartest and most experienced people to run the country in the way the smartest and most experienced citizens see fit, then we should have an eligibility test — for candidates as well as citizens. I don't think that's what voting should be for though.
I think that regardless of which political party ends up in power, the country is probably going to roll along relatively well. I don't really think there's a "wrong" way to vote when selecting leaders, because voting is not the be-all and end-all of participatory democracy. That's why we have letter writing campaigns, protests, lobby groups and the like. All things which arguably have more sway over the political landscape if done correctly, and don't have any required qualifications.
Taking this into account, my personal feeling is that we should drop qualifications for voting entirely, on the grounds that everyone has interests to represent, and that we should be listening at least in part to anyone who takes the time to express their needs. I consider voting to be one of many methods to express one's needs, and everyone's needs are different. So if someone votes in favor of a candidate because they comprehensively understand everyone's platforms and one stands out against the rest, that's great. If someone votes for a certain candidate because of the sole reason that the candidate is for or against abortion, then sure, why not. That's important to that person. If someone votes for a candidate on the basis of looks or likeability, then… well, that's what they value I suppose. Why not. There's no saying we can't lobby them down the line 
If we assume that voting is just a complicated way for people to voice their needs (which ultimately I think it is), and we assume that everyone has needs to represent (which I believe is true), and then we assume that it is important for people to be able to have their needs expressed or represented regardless of qualifications (which at least I think is the case), then I think the qualifications for voting should get trashed. Everyone should get to vote, no exceptions.
|
|
|
6:23 am
August 3, 2010
|
VoteAt16
| | |
| posts 51 | |
|
|
[QUOTE=parbor;405867]I'm not sure we should be verifying anything more. I think the discussion needs to be on what voting is for. If voting is about picking the smartest and most experienced people to run the country in the way the smartest and most experienced citizens see fit, then we should have an eligibility test — for candidates as well as citizens. I don't think that's what voting should be for though.
parbor does raise a good point. I'm more for the 16 thing because it is an age when many take, though not all, can work at jobs & therefore pay an income tax, which if anybody is paying attention, has been rising. I remember last year when our state sales tax jumper from 8.25 to 9.25% now. While everyone who has a job pays some sort of income tax, it is true that all people, regardless of age, pay the sales tax. This does give parbor's view a sort of merit. I do agree with this, but I guess the change will be to drastic (for those not necessarily as passionate about youth rights). I'm not saying that it might not happen, but I guess people will be afraid of drastic change. Meanwhile, incremental change should be best, as it will give time for supporters of universal suffrage, such as ourselves, to point out and say "We told you so," that youths aren't apathetic about political issues or who actually represents them.
|
|
|
4:33 am
February 10, 2011
|
Oroso
| | |
| posts 12713 | |
|
|
I wouldn't trust the government to implement any restrictions, eventually it'd just be used to shut out voters more likely to vote a certain way. And people are generally idiots who I don't want making decisions, being able to name the VP doesn't mean your not going to vote for Justin Bieber if he runs.
|
|
|
|
|
5:55 pm
March 21, 2011
|
SG1
| | |
| posts 283 | |
|
|
The truly politically ignorant wont be motivated to vote and so they wont. If anything attracts them to a voting booth, then they have a reason to vote.
But in any case, voting isn't based on the idea that people engage in some kindof crowdsourcing activity where they can collectively make better decisions than elected officials or technocrats. Most people can't, they simply lack the time to familiarize themselves with all relevant details, and in practice voting doesn't have a direct impact exact policies except in referendums. Rather the point of voting is that it makes the government accountable to the people and forces politicians to at least consider their interests (in theory, of course in practice its the people with the most money given the lack of meaningful campaign finance and lobbying reform).
In any case I think anyone capable of voting (i.e. going to a ballot box of appropriate height and indicating their choice) should be allowed to vote.
|
|
Login 
Register 
Forum
