Examination/Test for voting?

[sundizzle]

Do you think there should be an examination for being allowed to vote?  Voting is a RIGHT, but how do you feel about letting unqualified people choose the direction of your country?  I think it is sad that people vote for an image or a false representation of what they think they want.  It is stupid that something as important as elections are basically a popularity, spin and propaganda controlled arena.
With that said, I think a majority of people wouldn't be able to pass a voting examination.  As it is, the US is already weak sauce at getting people to vote so this would be a terrible idea given our current format of doing things.  I think the only legitimate way to make this happen is for there to be a serious tax incentive to people that vote.  Something along the 'tax refund or bonus' type of incentive.  Even if it were $500, this would get a lot of minority and low income people to take an active interest in learning and voting, instead of just watching and commentating about politics.

Your thoughts?

 

[sundizzle]

Do you think there should be an examination for being allowed to vote?  Voting is a RIGHT, but how do you feel about letting unqualified people choose the direction of your country?  I think it is sad that people vote for an image or a false representation of what they think they want.  It is stupid that something as important as elections are basically a popularity, spin and propaganda controlled arena.
With that said, I think a majority of people wouldn't be able to pass a voting examination.  As it is, the US is already weak sauce at getting people to vote so this would be a terrible idea given our current format of doing things.  I think the only legitimate way to make this happen is for there to be a serious tax incentive to people that vote.  Something along the 'tax refund or bonus' type of incentive.  Even if it were $500, this would get a lot of minority and low income people to take an active interest in learning and voting, instead of just watching and commentating about politics.

Your thoughts?

 

[GTA 809]

Son they cant do this. If they re-pass a literacy test requirement Detroit is screwed.

 

[GTA 809]

Son they cant do this. If they re-pass a literacy test requirement Detroit is screwed.

 

[slicknick951]

Originally Posted by Sundizzle

Do you think there should be an examination for being allowed to vote?  Voting is a RIGHT, but how do you feel about letting unqualified people choose the direction of your country?  I think it is sad that people vote for an image or a false representation of what they think they want.  It is stupid that something as important as elections are basically a popularity, spin and propaganda controlled arena.
With that said, I think a majority of people wouldn't be able to pass a voting examination.  As it is, the US is already weak sauce at getting people to vote so this would be a terrible idea given our current format of doing things.  I think the only legitimate way to make this happen is for there to be a serious tax incentive to people that vote.  Something along the 'tax refund or bonus' type of incentive.  Even if it were $500, this would get a lot of minority and low income people to take an active interest in learning and voting, instead of just watching and commentating about politics.

Your thoughts?

What elections have you worked on?
Have you volenteered your time to a campain?

Prob not so dont worry about people being able to pass a voting exam. If you dont like the way people are voting go out there and make people change thier mind. If its too much for you sit down and shut up.

And if you have been working on campains and still crying step your game up pimp.
  

 

[slicknick951]

Originally Posted by Sundizzle

Do you think there should be an examination for being allowed to vote?  Voting is a RIGHT, but how do you feel about letting unqualified people choose the direction of your country?  I think it is sad that people vote for an image or a false representation of what they think they want.  It is stupid that something as important as elections are basically a popularity, spin and propaganda controlled arena.
With that said, I think a majority of people wouldn't be able to pass a voting examination.  As it is, the US is already weak sauce at getting people to vote so this would be a terrible idea given our current format of doing things.  I think the only legitimate way to make this happen is for there to be a serious tax incentive to people that vote.  Something along the 'tax refund or bonus' type of incentive.  Even if it were $500, this would get a lot of minority and low income people to take an active interest in learning and voting, instead of just watching and commentating about politics.

Your thoughts?

What elections have you worked on?
Have you volenteered your time to a campain?

Prob not so dont worry about people being able to pass a voting exam. If you dont like the way people are voting go out there and make people change thier mind. If its too much for you sit down and shut up.

And if you have been working on campains and still crying step your game up pimp.
  

 

[sundizzle]

Originally Posted by Slicknick951

Originally Posted by Sundizzle

Do you think there should be an examination for being allowed to vote?  Voting is a RIGHT, but how do you feel about letting unqualified people choose the direction of your country?  I think it is sad that people vote for an image or a false representation of what they think they want.  It is stupid that something as important as elections are basically a popularity, spin and propaganda controlled arena.
With that said, I think a majority of people wouldn't be able to pass a voting examination.  As it is, the US is already weak sauce at getting people to vote so this would be a terrible idea given our current format of doing things.  I think the only legitimate way to make this happen is for there to be a serious tax incentive to people that vote.  Something along the 'tax refund or bonus' type of incentive.  Even if it were $500, this would get a lot of minority and low income people to take an active interest in learning and voting, instead of just watching and commentating about politics.

Your thoughts?

What elections have you worked on?
Have you volenteered your time to a campain?

Prob not so dont worry about people being able to pass a voting exam. If you dont like the way people are voting go out there and make people change thier mind. If its too much for you sit down and shut up.

And if you have been working on campains and still crying step your game up pimp.
  

Unnecessary.
Yes.  I have worked in elections.  Yes, I volunteered my time to get a relative elected to office.  I saw a system that wasted time, resources and lacked any modicum of efficiency.  Yet, that has NOTHING to do with what I posted.  I am just posing a hypothetical, philosophical question.  I don't get why this is in anyway construed as crying or a hate of the current system.

There is an age limit for voting.  Why?  Who decided that a 16 year old shouldn't have ANY say in where their country is going.  They, more so than others, are impacted by the next four years of their life.

I provided an example of how I think a possible way to do it would be.  My goal is to have a more true democracy, rather than a glorified beauty pageant.  HOW is it a democracy when the person that spends the most money on advertising/etc is usually the one that wins.  We have many 'non-democratic' unequal factors going on in politics.

A tax incentive would be aimed to give motivation and incentive to the facet of society that probably votes the least.  We are a capitalistic country, and without a financial incentive it is very hard for people to make time to vote.  It is free to have opinions without knowledge and instead of a country of sheep, i'd prefer a country of informed, well intentioned, democratic citizens 

 

[sundizzle]

Originally Posted by Slicknick951

Originally Posted by Sundizzle

Do you think there should be an examination for being allowed to vote?  Voting is a RIGHT, but how do you feel about letting unqualified people choose the direction of your country?  I think it is sad that people vote for an image or a false representation of what they think they want.  It is stupid that something as important as elections are basically a popularity, spin and propaganda controlled arena.
With that said, I think a majority of people wouldn't be able to pass a voting examination.  As it is, the US is already weak sauce at getting people to vote so this would be a terrible idea given our current format of doing things.  I think the only legitimate way to make this happen is for there to be a serious tax incentive to people that vote.  Something along the 'tax refund or bonus' type of incentive.  Even if it were $500, this would get a lot of minority and low income people to take an active interest in learning and voting, instead of just watching and commentating about politics.

Your thoughts?

What elections have you worked on?
Have you volenteered your time to a campain?

Prob not so dont worry about people being able to pass a voting exam. If you dont like the way people are voting go out there and make people change thier mind. If its too much for you sit down and shut up.

And if you have been working on campains and still crying step your game up pimp.
  

Unnecessary.
Yes.  I have worked in elections.  Yes, I volunteered my time to get a relative elected to office.  I saw a system that wasted time, resources and lacked any modicum of efficiency.  Yet, that has NOTHING to do with what I posted.  I am just posing a hypothetical, philosophical question.  I don't get why this is in anyway construed as crying or a hate of the current system.

There is an age limit for voting.  Why?  Who decided that a 16 year old shouldn't have ANY say in where their country is going.  They, more so than others, are impacted by the next four years of their life.

I provided an example of how I think a possible way to do it would be.  My goal is to have a more true democracy, rather than a glorified beauty pageant.  HOW is it a democracy when the person that spends the most money on advertising/etc is usually the one that wins.  We have many 'non-democratic' unequal factors going on in politics.

A tax incentive would be aimed to give motivation and incentive to the facet of society that probably votes the least.  We are a capitalistic country, and without a financial incentive it is very hard for people to make time to vote.  It is free to have opinions without knowledge and instead of a country of sheep, i'd prefer a country of informed, well intentioned, democratic citizens 

 

[slicknick951]

Originally Posted by Sundizzle

Originally Posted by Slicknick951

Originally Posted by Sundizzle

Do you think there should be an examination for being allowed to vote?  Voting is a RIGHT, but how do you feel about letting unqualified people choose the direction of your country?  I think it is sad that people vote for an image or a false representation of what they think they want.  It is stupid that something as important as elections are basically a popularity, spin and propaganda controlled arena.
With that said, I think a majority of people wouldn't be able to pass a voting examination.  As it is, the US is already weak sauce at getting people to vote so this would be a terrible idea given our current format of doing things.  I think the only legitimate way to make this happen is for there to be a serious tax incentive to people that vote.  Something along the 'tax refund or bonus' type of incentive.  Even if it were $500, this would get a lot of minority and low income people to take an active interest in learning and voting, instead of just watching and commentating about politics.

Your thoughts?

What elections have you worked on?
Have you volenteered your time to a campain?

Prob not so dont worry about people being able to pass a voting exam. If you dont like the way people are voting go out there and make people change thier mind. If its too much for you sit down and shut up.

And if you have been working on campains and still crying step your game up pimp.
  

Unnecessary.
Yes.  I have worked in elections.  Yes, I volunteered my time to get a relative elected to office.  I saw a system that wasted time, resources and lacked any modicum of efficiency.  Yet, that has NOTHING to do with what I posted.  I am just posing a hypothetical, philosophical question.  I don't get why this is in anyway construed as crying or a hate of the current system.

There is an age limit for voting.  Why?  Who decided that a 16 year old shouldn't have ANY say in where their country is going.  They, more so than others, are impacted by the next four years of their life.

I provided an example of how I think a possible way to do it would be.  My goal is to have a more true democracy, rather than a glorified beauty pageant.  HOW is it a democracy when the person that spends the most money on advertising/etc is usually the one that wins.  We have many 'non-democratic' unequal factors going on in politics.

A tax incentive would be aimed to give motivation and incentive to the facet of society that probably votes the least.  We are a capitalistic country, and without a financial incentive it is very hard for people to make time to vote.  It is free to have opinions without knowledge and instead of a country of sheep, i'd prefer a country of informed, well intentioned, democratic citizens 

The person who spends the most wins. Thats america

Yankees spend the most they win the most
Apple spends the most on R&D they sell the most

People have the right to vote for whoever they want its the politicians job to sway thier vote and if you cant help them get pass the bright and flashing lights then you are not doing your job right. Its not the 1950 or 60s the world is changing and you have to get with the times give the people what they want even if you are just %$!@!#*$**!@ half the time.

Only the losers try to inforce rules to make the game "fair".

What if the person in power who is getting these votes from these "unqualified people" made it easier and more worth while for them to vote and more of a hasstle for the "qualified" people to vote? Would you be ok with that? Im assuming there are more "unqualified" people in the country than there are qualified so wouldnt that make it fair?

 

[slicknick951]

Originally Posted by Sundizzle

Originally Posted by Slicknick951

Originally Posted by Sundizzle

Do you think there should be an examination for being allowed to vote?  Voting is a RIGHT, but how do you feel about letting unqualified people choose the direction of your country?  I think it is sad that people vote for an image or a false representation of what they think they want.  It is stupid that something as important as elections are basically a popularity, spin and propaganda controlled arena.
With that said, I think a majority of people wouldn't be able to pass a voting examination.  As it is, the US is already weak sauce at getting people to vote so this would be a terrible idea given our current format of doing things.  I think the only legitimate way to make this happen is for there to be a serious tax incentive to people that vote.  Something along the 'tax refund or bonus' type of incentive.  Even if it were $500, this would get a lot of minority and low income people to take an active interest in learning and voting, instead of just watching and commentating about politics.

Your thoughts?

What elections have you worked on?
Have you volenteered your time to a campain?

Prob not so dont worry about people being able to pass a voting exam. If you dont like the way people are voting go out there and make people change thier mind. If its too much for you sit down and shut up.

And if you have been working on campains and still crying step your game up pimp.
  

Unnecessary.
Yes.  I have worked in elections.  Yes, I volunteered my time to get a relative elected to office.  I saw a system that wasted time, resources and lacked any modicum of efficiency.  Yet, that has NOTHING to do with what I posted.  I am just posing a hypothetical, philosophical question.  I don't get why this is in anyway construed as crying or a hate of the current system.

There is an age limit for voting.  Why?  Who decided that a 16 year old shouldn't have ANY say in where their country is going.  They, more so than others, are impacted by the next four years of their life.

I provided an example of how I think a possible way to do it would be.  My goal is to have a more true democracy, rather than a glorified beauty pageant.  HOW is it a democracy when the person that spends the most money on advertising/etc is usually the one that wins.  We have many 'non-democratic' unequal factors going on in politics.

A tax incentive would be aimed to give motivation and incentive to the facet of society that probably votes the least.  We are a capitalistic country, and without a financial incentive it is very hard for people to make time to vote.  It is free to have opinions without knowledge and instead of a country of sheep, i'd prefer a country of informed, well intentioned, democratic citizens 

The person who spends the most wins. Thats america

Yankees spend the most they win the most
Apple spends the most on R&D they sell the most

People have the right to vote for whoever they want its the politicians job to sway thier vote and if you cant help them get pass the bright and flashing lights then you are not doing your job right. Its not the 1950 or 60s the world is changing and you have to get with the times give the people what they want even if you are just %$!@!#*$**!@ half the time.

Only the losers try to inforce rules to make the game "fair".

What if the person in power who is getting these votes from these "unqualified people" made it easier and more worth while for them to vote and more of a hasstle for the "qualified" people to vote? Would you be ok with that? Im assuming there are more "unqualified" people in the country than there are qualified so wouldnt that make it fair?

 

[falcon4567]

Y'know I think they tried this once...

 

[falcon4567]

Y'know I think they tried this once...

 

[e3lal]

Isn't this why we still have the electoral college?  Popular vote should decide the winner imo.

 

[e3lal]

Isn't this why we still have the electoral college?  Popular vote should decide the winner imo.

 

[slicknick951]

Originally Posted by Falcon4567

Y'know I think they tried this once...

I think there was a test for when blacks wanted thier right to vote not 100% sure It was from like 10th grade american history so im a little out of the loop.

Did a little searching



1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.

1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
Im assuming he is looking for more than a literacy test because my 6 year old baby cousin can read

 

[slicknick951]

Originally Posted by Falcon4567

Y'know I think they tried this once...

I think there was a test for when blacks wanted thier right to vote not 100% sure It was from like 10th grade american history so im a little out of the loop.

Did a little searching



1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.

1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
Im assuming he is looking for more than a literacy test because my 6 year old baby cousin can read

 

[falcon4567]

Yeah that's what I was talking about; they also used to ask people to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap.

 

[falcon4567]

Yeah that's what I was talking about; they also used to ask people to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap.

 

[slicknick951]

Originally Posted by Falcon4567

Yeah that's what I was talking about; they also used to ask people to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap.

Yea and gumballs in a jar i remember a little more now

 

[slicknick951]

Originally Posted by Falcon4567

Yeah that's what I was talking about; they also used to ask people to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap.

Yea and gumballs in a jar i remember a little more now

 

[Sir San Diego]

Literacy tests, along with poll taxes and extra-legal intimidation,[1], were used to deny suffrage to African-Americans in a number of southern states, while allowing many illiterate whites to vote. This was accomplished by making the test inordinately difficult and allowing test-givers to choose who had to take the test and who did not.


My thoughts on your brilliant idea OP... wow.

Who decides what qualified means when it comes to voting? There are people who are voted into office who are not qualified to do anything other than collect checks, yet they get sworn in and allowed to ruin whatever district, city or state they are given power over.

Your idea is not an new one (obviously) is very subjective and has been, in the past, used to disenfranchise those who aren't deemed worthy by a large group or "majority." I sincerely hope this isn't the latest talk amongst pundits and supporters of the tea party movement, because if it is, they have fully exposed themselves as the racists they are.

 

[Sir San Diego]

Literacy tests, along with poll taxes and extra-legal intimidation,[1], were used to deny suffrage to African-Americans in a number of southern states, while allowing many illiterate whites to vote. This was accomplished by making the test inordinately difficult and allowing test-givers to choose who had to take the test and who did not.


My thoughts on your brilliant idea OP... wow.

Who decides what qualified means when it comes to voting? There are people who are voted into office who are not qualified to do anything other than collect checks, yet they get sworn in and allowed to ruin whatever district, city or state they are given power over.

Your idea is not an new one (obviously) is very subjective and has been, in the past, used to disenfranchise those who aren't deemed worthy by a large group or "majority." I sincerely hope this isn't the latest talk amongst pundits and supporters of the tea party movement, because if it is, they have fully exposed themselves as the racists they are.