About Voting

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
Post Reply
primitive
Textkit Member
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Boston

About Voting

Post by primitive » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:24 am

My friend had an interesting thought. He noticed that canidates target younger people to vote for them. This is becase they do not have experience living in the real world. Or maybe not enough. They wouldn't be wise enough. Come on. Would a kid in your AP chem class really no exactly who he wants for president? Not really. He hasn't even left the nest yet. People even in their 30s might not have enough experience. My friend thinks that citizens only 40+ shoud be able to vote. They are our wisest people when it comes to making a decision like this. They know what a country needs, or what they need, and they have experience from past presidents. I was trying to tell him that there are some extremely brilliant young men and women out there (39 -), but his comeback was strong. He said that they would be even more brilliant after they reach forty. So what do you think? Would it be a good idea to raise the voting age to 40? It would get rid of many votes, but it would leave us with more reasonalbe votes...usually.
phpbb

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:51 am

The idea behind democracy is that the entire population is represented in the parliament. You do not need to know what is best for the country or for someone else. All that is required is that you know what you want and vote for the person you feel represents you best.

In theory, this will produce a government made up an representatives of the entire population and their wishes.

Otherwise I could perhaps equally easily add to your friends train of thought that only those who have a university degree are educated enough to vote. Perhaps even only those who have studied law or economics. After all, what does a heart surgeon know about running a country...

Although I am rapidly losing my believe that democracy is a good way of government, this is the system and no one should be excluded.

Taht said, of course there needs to a certain age limit, 2 year olds should not be allowed to vote. I think 18 is an appropriate level.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:15 am

My friend thinks that citizens only 40+ shoud be able to vote. They are our wisest people when it comes to making a decision like this.
Simply said, I think young people who DO vote aren't so immature. :/

primitive
Textkit Member
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Boston

Post by primitive » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:37 am

^, they would be less immature when they hit 40, right? more wise when they hiy 40 right?
phpbb

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:46 am

I certainly do not want the nation to be led solely by people who possess values from the 60's and before. While wisdom and age usually correlate, not even close to all adults of that age group are wise. I think an intelligent voter is just as important as a wise voter. I heard a saying once... "anyone younger than 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, anyone over 30 who is a liberal has no brain". While that is an exaggeration, I think a improportionate part of the liberal population would probably be lost under such age restrictions. What I would like to see is that voters have to pass some sort of evaluation to prove that they have an IQ higher than that of a pigeon and know something about history, politics, government, the Constitution, etc.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:58 am

What I would like to see is that voters have to pass some sort of evaluation to prove that they have an IQ higher than that of a pigeon and know something about history, politics, government, the Constitution, etc.
So much for democracy! What about the ordinary car mechanic, farmer, shopping trolley collection kid!

Benissimus you oligarchical elitist, I wholeheartedly agree!
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:35 am

Kasper wrote:
What I would like to see is that voters have to pass some sort of evaluation to prove that they have an IQ higher than that of a pigeon and know something about history, politics, government, the Constitution, etc.
So much for democracy! What about the ordinary car mechanic, farmer, shopping trolley collection kid!

Benissimus you oligarchical elitist, I wholeheartedly agree!
I agree with Benissimus on this, I do not think it unreasonable to want people who vote to know something about the process and the issues. Also, people are taught these things in early elementary school, there is no reason to think that an "ordinary" adult could not relearn the info.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:39 am

It's interesting, but predictable, that whenever people devise methods through which certain people should be barred from voting, they almost invariably suggest a system that gives their party an edge. Primitive knows that older people tend to be more conservative. Bennisimus (I'm presuming you're a democrat) knows that intellectuals tend to vote for the democrats (except for millionaires). Rhuiden knows that limited knowledge tests (last used to block blacks from voting in southern states) would prevent many recent immigrants from voting, and thus take votes from the democrats.


Personally, I suggest we restrict the vote to just me, or people who entirely agree with me. That would surely guarantee a sensible result. :wink:
phpbb

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:45 am

benissimus wrote:What I would like to see is that voters have to pass some sort of evaluation to prove that they have an IQ higher than that of a pigeon and know something about history, politics, government, the Constitution, etc.
It sounds great in theory but it would be hard to put it into practise. How do you decide who is more informed? And more importantly, what percentage of people should be excluded? 10%? 20%? 85%? What if 40% of the people fail the test? Would 40% be excluded? How would these people's interests be represented?

What we are talking about is who can participate in elections for a representative democracy. The candidates should be smart and well informed. The voters don't necessarily need to be -- that's why they are electing representatives in the first place.

Besides, any system must be robust against participants who are deliberately trying to subvert the system itself. It's very easy for this kind of requirement to become a weapon to exlude various classes of people.

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:52 am

would prevent many recent immigrants from voting
Actually, the citizenship process makes sure you know all that, I believe.

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Re: About Voting

Post by Democritus » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:55 am

primitive wrote:My friend thinks that citizens only 40+ shoud be able to vote. They are our wisest people when it comes to making a decision like this. They know what a country needs, or what they need, and they have experience from past presidents.
I am not ready to concede that people over 40 are wiser. Not all people grow wiser all the time. The young don't have the wisdom of experience, but many old people likewise haven't accumulated much wisdom, in spite of their experiences.

Besides, wisdom is not the only thing that matters -- courage, open mindedness, humility, and integrity also matter.

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: About Voting

Post by Eureka » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:04 am

Democritus wrote:Besides, wisdom is not the only thing that matters -- courage, open mindedness, humility, and integrity also matter.
How are we going to test the voters for courage? (I presume we'll need to take urine samples...)


I think people over 40 are wiser, on average. However, not necessarily about politics. They're more likely to have set voting patterns, and therefore not consider the issues anymore when they vote.
phpbb

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:11 pm

benissimus wrote: What I would like to see is that voters have to pass some sort of evaluation to prove that they have an IQ higher than that of a pigeon and know something about history, politics, government, the Constitution, etc.
What can you do? There are so many fools in all age groups, I mean look at steven's mother. But seriously we will always be run by stupid people.

I would have IQ less than that of a pigeon if measured by any mathematics/pattern/vocabulary/SPOT THE DIFFERENCE etc. IQ test. And I know nothing about history, politics, government, the Constitution etc. but since we are being honest I believe that I do know extremely well who is a prick.
phpbb

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:02 pm

I believe that I do know extremely well who is a prick
Now there is a basis for a good foreign policy!
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:07 am

I abhor the idea of a qualification test for voting.

First of all, it would exclude a huge portion of the population who may not be willing/able to do the test; nevertheless, their opinions and needs are just as important as anyone else's. A person who may be intellectually disadvantaged is still quite capable of figuring out what's important and who's most likely to give it to them--regardless of how others may view that. The opinion is still valid.

Secondly, it buys into the idea that intelligence, humanity, wisdom, whatever, can be measured. They cannot. Life cannot be boiled down into a quiz. The issues that face us are complex, grey, and abstract, and a person's capacity to make informed decisions really has nothing to do with whether they can properly answer technical questions about the system.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:32 am

Eureka wrote:

Personally, I suggest we restrict the vote to just me, or people who entirely agree with me. That would surely guarantee a sensible result. :wink:
Eureka, you are a kindred spirit. I always find people who don't agree with me to be short-sighted :)
Last edited by Bert on Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:35 am

Bert wrote:
Eureka wrote:

Personally, I suggest we restrict the vote to just me, or people who entirely agree with me. That would surely guarantee a sensible result. :wink:
Eureka, you are a kindred spirit. I always find people who don't agree with me to short-sighted :)
:lol:

My friend Jane and I have had plans drawn up for some time. We're ready to set things in order when people stop being so contrary.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:43 am

Kasper wrote:
What I would like to see is that voters have to pass some sort of evaluation to prove that they have an IQ higher than that of a pigeon and know something about history, politics, government, the Constitution, etc.
So much for democracy! What about the ordinary car mechanic, farmer, shopping trolley collection kid!

Benissimus you oligarchical elitist, I wholeheartedly agree!
Maybe I am misunderstanding you but it sounds like that your ordinary car mechanic, farmer, shopping trolley collection kid, know nothing about politics, government, the Constitution, etc. :?:

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:50 am

Bert wrote:
Kasper wrote:
What I would like to see is that voters have to pass some sort of evaluation to prove that they have an IQ higher than that of a pigeon and know something about history, politics, government, the Constitution, etc.
So much for democracy! What about the ordinary car mechanic, farmer, shopping trolley collection kid!

Benissimus you oligarchical elitist, I wholeheartedly agree!
Maybe I am misunderstanding you but it sounds like that your ordinary car mechanic, farmer, shopping trolley collection kid, know nothing about politics, government, the Constitution, etc. :?:
I was only referring to those ordinary car mechanics, farmers and shopping trolley collection kids who know nothing about politics, government, the constitution (is constitution with a capital?), etc. :wink:

I had no intention of getting into this sort of social 'class' kind of debate Bert, I think I said the same of heart surgeon inter alia. I was trying to make a point, although my method was without doubt politically incorrect. However I feel that being politically incorrect exaggeration often helps to clarify a point. Absolutely no offence intended.

In case I did offend you I offer my sincere apologies.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:14 am

klewlis wrote:I abhor the idea of a qualification test for voting.

First of all, it would exclude a huge portion of the population who may not be willing/able to do the test; nevertheless, their opinions and needs are just as important as anyone else's. A person who may be intellectually disadvantaged is still quite capable of figuring out what's important and who's most likely to give it to them--regardless of how others may view that. The opinion is still valid.

Secondly, it buys into the idea that intelligence, humanity, wisdom, whatever, can be measured. They cannot. Life cannot be boiled down into a quiz. The issues that face us are complex, grey, and abstract, and a person's capacity to make informed decisions really has nothing to do with whether they can properly answer technical questions about the system.
I don't think that the purpose of the test would be to exclude anyone (although some may try to use it that way), I think the purpose would be to try to get those who are voting to invest a little time and effort into the process. So many people only pay attention the last few days of an election or may not pay any attention at all and then go and vote. These people are not trying to make an "informed" decision. There is no excuse for this.

The basics of our system of government are taught to our elementary age kids in the government schools, there is no reason to think that even intellectually disadvantaged (I like your choice of words here) people cannot learn them.

Rhuiden

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:31 am

Kasper wrote: I was only referring to those ordinary car mechanics, farmers and shopping trolley collection kids who know nothing about politics, government, the constitution (is constitution with a capital?), etc. :wink:

I had no intention of getting into this sort of social 'class' kind of debate Bert, I think I said the same of heart surgeon inter alia. I was trying to make a point, although my method was without doubt politically incorrect. However I feel that being politically incorrect exaggeration often helps to clarify a point. Absolutely no offence intended.

In case I did offend you I offer my sincere apologies.
Thanks for the clarification. (Your apology is appreciated but was not necessary. I held off being offended untill clarification of your postion was given.)

User avatar
Jeff Tirey
Administrator
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 6:58 pm
Location: Strongsville, Ohio

Re: About Voting

Post by Jeff Tirey » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:15 pm

primitive wrote:My friend thinks that citizens only 40+ shoud be able to vote. They are our wisest people when it comes to making a decision like this.
That must be why we have health care (Medicare) for the old but nothing for children.
Textkit Founder

User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Post by cweb255 » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:25 pm

ha! Only old people vote? What do they know, anyhow? Only atheist scientists should vote. Now that's an informed vote!

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:46 pm

If your're old enough to serve in the military, you're old enough to vote.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Post Reply