Voting Eligibility Test

[StopTheNWO]

John Doe lives in a dump, gets drunk, beats his wife and kids, survives on food stamps and welfare. He goes to the polls and hits the "all republican" or "all democrat" button because 'that's wut my daddy always voted dag gummit'.

His vote carries the same weight as yours. How about a SIMPLE test asking a few basic questions about all the candidates to ensure voters have put forth some effort to think about the future of this country?

/discuss

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

constitutional

I like the idea but sadly I think it is unconstitutional. It would be a great country though if someone were required to answer a few questions about our history,economy,foreign policy,etc before getting that voter registration card in their hands. We would win in a landslide!

 

[FreeTraveler]

Sure, great idea. You want to guess what the questions would be with George Bush in the White House? You want to guess how much a chance you'd have of having your test graded correctly???

If only certain people get to vote, somebody decides who. That said, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to restrict the vote to citizens of the US who did not directly receive any funds from the Gov other than tax returns (including SocSec, since that was supposed to be paid to a fund). I don't believe people who work for the govt or receive welfare should be able to vote for more government or more welfare.

 

[StopTheNWO]

Well said Free Traveler. Creating the test would be a very dicey issue. I'd like to hear more ideas about who/how to create and administer such a test.

We have too many 'leeches' in society today and they are the majority vote.

 

[Doji]

NO!!!! That is the opposite of what this campaign is fighting for, for the reasons FreeTraveler stated.

 

[StopTheNWO]

I don't believe people who work for the govt or receive welfare should be able to vote for more government or more welfare.

I would gladly shut up about the test if this became a reality.

 

[ErikBlack]

The country is already run by an intellectual elite, establishing a voter eligibility test would only skew it more in that direction. Besides, your assumptions are wrong. John Doe who lives in a dump, gets drunk, beats his wife typically has no interest in politics and does not vote at all.

Thomas Jefferson put it best when he said:

"I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them."

 

[han_solo]

Personally I think that you should NOT BE ABLE to vote if you take ANY MONEY from the government....welfare, social security, a government employee, or a government contractor etc. Its a conflict of interest. Just like lottery employees are not allowed to play, you should not be allowed to vote if your sucking on the big red, white and blue teet. Once you take money from the government, your working for and are subservient to those of us that are paying for you.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse[a payment] from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

--------- 18th-century Scottish historian Alexander Tytler (obvious 3 century's ago, more obvious today)


That is why we are doomed in the USA. Once socialism hits and becomes accepted, its unstoppable until complete destruction and collapse under its own weight occurs.

 

[ConstitutionGal]

As we seem to be actually moving toward a democracy and away from a Constitutional Repubic, I think the following is a salient point:

A democracy can only exist until the voters find out they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury (by voting for the candidate that promises them the most goodies that were first removed from someone else's pocket)....paraphrased, of course.

 

[tcindie]

This idea is very reminiscent of how blacks used to be treated at the polls.. bad idea.

 

[McDermit]

Personally I think that you should NOT BE ABLE to vote if you take ANY MONEY from the government....welfare, social security, a government employee, or a government contractor etc. Its a conflict of interest. Just like lottery employees are not allowed to play, you should not be allowed to vote if your sucking on the big red, white and blue teet. Once you take money from the government, your working for and are subservient to those of us that are paying for you.

that's assanine. people who paid into social security deserve to get that money back. why the hell should they be penalized because of it?

 

[McDermit]

If anything, I'd maybe support something where only property owners could vote, but even then, what gives them more say than a renter or anyone else?

Sure, there's a part of most of us that wishes only educated (about the candidates and govt) people would vote, but it's just that - a wish.

 

[Ironyinc]

What we need to do is remove pre-printed ballots, get some scantron sheets and have voters bubble in the name of their candidate letter by letter. Even just having pieces of paper and having people write the name would be better, though you get into legibility concerns.

 

[AlabamaWildMan]

A democracy can only exist until the voters find out they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury (by voting for the candidate that promises them the most goodies that were first removed from someone else's pocket)....paraphrased, of course.

So...we may need to go back to the time when Women didn't vote...right ?



...backs away slowly from the monitor....

 

[AlabamaWildMan]

If anything, I'd maybe support something where only property owners could vote, but even then, what gives them more say than a renter or anyone else?

Sure, there's a part of most of us that wishes only educated (about the candidates and govt) people would vote, but it's just that - a wish.

Well...it's that point-of-Ownership that makes those things mean more to that owner and, by extension, cause them to want to vote for those that will not 'give' things to those that haven't 'earned' it by paying for it (either by actual cash or sweat equity). Renters are only piling their money in a corner and lighting fire to it...for all the good it does for them. Those that collect those payments is what is on the 'other side' of that coin.

...and those that did pay into Social (shudder) Security did earn it -- but the feds have given that cache to other things....

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

If anything, I'd maybe support something where only property owners could vote, but even then, what gives them more say than a renter or anyone else?

Yeah, if you live in a big city you're far more likely to rent, but if you're a farmer in the middle of nowhere chances are you have huge tracts of land. There's no guarantee the farmer will vote to keep government in check, especially if he's getting subsidies.

It's always made sense to me that voting, at least on fiscal issues, should be weighted by how much of an economic burden government is on you. For example, a government funded solely by a head tax might give the less-fortunate a disproportionate say on how revenues are spent, but a government funded solely by a progressive income tax might give the better-off a disproportionate say. Of course, a proportional tax would give everyone an equal say.

 

[SimpleName]

Personally I think that you should NOT BE ABLE to vote if you take ANY MONEY from the government....welfare, social security, a government employee, or a government contractor etc. Its a conflict of interest. Just like lottery employees are not allowed to play, you should not be allowed to vote if your sucking on the big red, white and blue teet. Once you take money from the government, your working for and are subservient to those of us that are paying for you.
.

Some excellent thoughts. I'm glad you went beyond the average. It all makes perfect sense. The conflict of interest is definitely there...it is probably worth several hundreds of votes for Dr. Paul. Unfortunately, as stated, it does appear to be unconstitutional. The 24th amendment does say there can be no poll tax or other tax required to vote in an election. Although not stated, i'm sure it would be treated as implied that keeping people from voting because they use government programs is a tax. Plus, you might be able to say tax credits are a conflict of interest leaning people to repubs.

 

[Ilhaguru]

You can only choose leaders for yourself, not for others.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Some excellent thoughts. I'm glad you went beyond the average. It all makes perfect sense. The conflict of interest is definitely there...it is probably worth several hundreds of votes for Dr. Paul. Unfortunately, as stated, it does appear to be unconstitutional. The 24th amendment does say there can be no poll tax or other tax required to vote in an election. Although not stated, i'm sure it would be treated as implied that keeping people from voting because they use government programs is a tax. Plus, you might be able to say tax credits are a conflict of interest leaning people to repubs.

Then again, the income tax and IRS have effectively trumped several parts of the 4th and 5th Amendments. I think it all comes down to how much of the Constitution the Supreme Court feels like enforcing.

 

[foofighter20x]

Yeah, if you live in a big city you're far more likely to rent, but if you're a farmer in the middle of nowhere chances are you have huge tracts of land. There's no guarantee the farmer will vote to keep government in check, especially if he's getting subsidies.

FATHER: Stop that, stop that! You're not going to do a song while I'm here. Now listen lad, in twenty minutes you're getting married to a girl whose father owns the biggest tracts of open land in Britain.
HERBERT: But I don't want land.
FATHER: Listen, Alex,--
HERBERT: Herbert.
FATHER: Herbert. We live in a bloody swamp. We need all the land we can get.
HERBERT: But I don't like her.
FATHER: Don't like her?! What's wrong with her? She's beautiful, she's rich, she's got huge... tracts of land.
HERBERT: I know, but I want the girl that I marry to have... a certain... special... [music] ...something...
FATHER: Cut that out, cut that out. Look, you're marryin' Princess Lucky, so you'd better get used to the idea. [smack] Guards! Make sure the Prince doesn't leave this room until I come and get 'im.