About Voting
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 11:27 pm
- Location: Boston
About Voting
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.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Melbourne
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.
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.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
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
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Melbourne
So much for democracy! What about the ordinary car mechanic, farmer, shopping trolley collection kid!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.
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.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
- Location: East Tennessee
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.Kasper wrote:So much for democracy! What about the ordinary car mechanic, farmer, shopping trolley collection kid!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.
Benissimus you oligarchical elitist, I wholeheartedly agree!
Rhuiden
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
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.
Personally, I suggest we restrict the vote to just me, or people who entirely agree with me. That would surely guarantee a sensible result.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: California
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?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 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.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
- Location: Anc, AK, USA
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: California
Re: About Voting
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.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.
Besides, wisdom is not the only thing that matters -- courage, open mindedness, humility, and integrity also matter.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: About Voting
How are we going to test the voters for courage? (I presume we'll need to take urine samples...)Democritus wrote:Besides, wisdom is not the only thing that matters -- courage, open mindedness, humility, and integrity also matter.
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.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm
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.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.
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.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Melbourne
Now there is a basis for a good foreign policy!I believe that I do know extremely well who is a prick
“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.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
- klewlis
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
- Contact:
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.
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.
First say to yourself what you would be; then do what you need to do. ~Epictetus
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1889
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
- Location: Arthur Ontario Canada
Eureka, you are a kindred spirit. I always find people who don't agree with me to be short-sightedEureka 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.
Last edited by Bert on Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
- Location: Madison, WI, USA
- Contact:
Bert wrote:Eureka, you are a kindred spirit. I always find people who don't agree with me to short-sightedEureka 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.
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;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1889
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
- Location: Arthur Ontario Canada
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 wrote:So much for democracy! What about the ordinary car mechanic, farmer, shopping trolley collection kid!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.
Benissimus you oligarchical elitist, I wholeheartedly agree!
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Melbourne
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.Bert wrote: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 wrote:So much for democracy! What about the ordinary car mechanic, farmer, shopping trolley collection kid!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.
Benissimus you oligarchical elitist, I wholeheartedly agree!
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.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
- Location: East Tennessee
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.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.
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
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1889
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
- Location: Arthur Ontario Canada
Thanks for the clarification. (Your apology is appreciated but was not necessary. I held off being offended untill clarification of your postion was given.)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.
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.
- Jeff Tirey
- Administrator
- Posts: 896
- Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 6:58 pm
- Location: Strongsville, Ohio
Re: About Voting
That must be why we have health care (Medicare) for the old but nothing for children.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.
Textkit Founder
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
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