Letting Everyone Vote?

• Andy-Buddy wrote on 2010-10-01 06:43
  Voting is a right, and should be used by every informed American citizen above 18.
  
  
  
  That's a basis I believe, that democracy would work off of.
  Everyone would get a say in what they know.
  
  But should everyone be allowed to vote?
  
  No, not discrimination against a race, or gender.
  
  Just, (I guess this is discrimination,) having a test before voting.
  
  Just something to make sure you're not ignorant.
  
  Would such a thing work?
  
  
  
  
  My friend and I were having a discussion, and we can't figure out if voting should be limited. People vote based on belief and fact, but I'm starting to see the former being more influential.
  
  My solution would be a short, 5-10 minute, open book test. It would be taken immediately before voting, and you would be given a proposition booklet. You would have to answer basic questions about each proposition you wished to vote for, and then you would be allowed to vote.
  
  So should everyone be allowed to vote?
  Is there any way that we can limit voters to people who have at least read the full proposition?
• Chillax wrote on 2010-10-01 07:00
  Each proposition is explained on the ballot, so there's no need to test people on it.
• Andy-Buddy wrote on 2010-10-01 07:04

  Quote from Chillax;172466:

  Each proposition is explained on the ballot, so there's no need to test people on it.

  
  
  Just because its there, doesn't mean people read it.
  
  
  Some things about people just ignoring things...
  
  Sort of scares me.
• Ruquion wrote on 2010-10-01 07:12
  The ignorant would vote more or less randomly, therefore the higher the number of them, the less their votes matter.
  The informed would vote for the one who is actually good, so there wouldn't be a problem.
  
  Hypothetically.
• hengsheng120 wrote on 2010-10-01 07:37
  you mean you want to bring back the Literacy test ? That would be more discrimination against non-english speaking voters. There was a reason that they took it out over 50 years ago.
• Cryosite wrote on 2010-10-01 10:10
  I say discriminate against non-english speaking voters then. Discrimination is unavoidable, and not always a bad thing. It is bad when the discrimination is based on things like race, which the individual has no control over. It's another matter entirely when discrimination is based on ability.
  
  I still think people should be required to speak English in America. It's a skill that should be necessary to be considered a citizen. And I would wholeheartedly support this test idea. at minimum it protects people from their own dumb selves. If they don't know what the proposition does, and can't be bothered to read it, then they have about a 50% chance of screwing themselves over.
• Time wrote on 2010-10-01 11:13

  Quote from Cryosite;172499:

  I say discriminate against non-english speaking voters then. Discrimination is unavoidable, and not always a bad thing. It is bad when the discrimination is based on things like race, which the individual has no control over. It's another matter entirely when discrimination is based on ability.
  
  I still think people should be required to speak English in America. It's a skill that should be necessary to be considered a citizen. And I would wholeheartedly support this test idea. at minimum it protects people from their own dumb selves. If they don't know what the proposition does, and can't be bothered to read it, then they have about a 50% chance of screwing themselves over.

  
  If your post is as sarcastic as it should be, skip the rest of this post, if your actually serious read it.
  
  Um, your "rant" goes from saying that people should only speak English in America, to protecting their own dumb selves, so Im assuming means your calling people who dont speak english dumb, if this is the case, you need to tone done the ethnocentrism, take a reality check, and be far less ignorant.
  
  Okay, so lets dissect this some more......

  I say discriminate against non-english speaking voters then. Discrimination is unavoidable, and not always a bad thing. It is bad when the discrimination is based on things like race, which the individual has no control over. It's another matter entirely when discrimination is based on ability.
  

  
  You want to discriminate against people who dont speak English.....But you do realize, the whole point is for those people TO vote....IF they have NO CLUE what theyre voting for, chances are, theyre not going to, same with people who speak English, but if they actually have an opinion on the matter, they vote for what they want, because they, are, citizens. And, is another matter when discrimination is based on ability? Thats okay? Why is discrimation against anyone okay?
• Tatsu wrote on 2010-10-01 14:26
  Personally, you should earn the right to vote at the age 18 or when coming to America and finally becoming a citizen. Through a test, or some sort. Having a test prior to each voting session is a bit much and time consuming.
  
  Being able to speak English fluently and understanding it as a requirement to be a citizen is idiotic. There are much easier and better alternatives. As far as I know, the government usually has official propositions, tests, and etc etc on their sites in quite a multitude of different languages for people that aren't fluent.
• Zid wrote on 2010-10-01 14:36

  Quote from Timexpo;172508:

  You want to discriminate against people who dont speak English.....But you do realize, the whole point is for those people TO vote....IF they have NO CLUE what theyre voting for, chances are, theyre not going to, same with people who speak English, but if they actually have an opinion on the matter, they vote for what they want, because they, are, citizens.

  
  
  I know there's a large number of non-English speaking people who vote, just for the candidate that is a). their own race, and/or b). promises them what they want. Just because a citizen(?) doesn't speak English, doesn't mean they have a high chance of not voting.
  
  On-topic: I don't mind a proposition test, but tests like "Here's what you need to know as an American citizen" is a no. But what I want to point out is, if voters don't know about the proposition they're voting in, what are the chances that they're actually going to vote for/against it anyway? Matters such as regional candidates/propositions/bills are less paid attention to by the average citizen, and usually the ones who vote in these matters are usually (if not somewhat) informed about it. Things like state/national matters are more probable to have a test for.
• December wrote on 2010-10-01 14:37
  Weeellllll, compulsory voting in Australia for 18+, but trouble is you end up with boogans who just donkey vote (where you put first preference on as the top one, second preference as second, etc etc)
• Arsik wrote on 2010-10-01 20:28
  Should be like how it worked in Starship Troopers. If you want to vote (and become a citizen instead of just a civilian), then you have to serve for the minimum term in the military, or in the case that you can't physically handle military training/duties, then be a civil servant for very little (meaning that you're willing to put your country/community before yourself). This way, if someone really wants to be part of the country, then they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for said country. If not, then they can just continue to be civilians (not necessary a bad thing, just they can't vote and they have very little say in what the government says).
  
  That's what I think anyways.
• abc33kr wrote on 2010-10-01 21:30

  Quote from Arsik;172797:

  Should be like how it worked in Starship Troopers. If you want to vote (and become a citizen instead of just a civilian), then you have to serve for the minimum term in the military, or in the case that you can't physically handle military training/duties, then be a civil servant for very little (meaning that you're willing to put your country/community before yourself). This way, if someone really wants to be part of the country, then they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for said country. If not, then they can just continue to be civilians (not necessary a bad thing, just they can't vote and they have very little say in what the government says).
  
  That's what I think anyways.

  
  
  good idea.
• Virtue wrote on 2010-10-01 22:06
  Lol, you people are implying because someone is intelligent they have more of a right to vote than others.
  
  That's not how it really works in democratic societies.
• Shirayuki wrote on 2010-10-01 22:26
  People who vote for the wrong reasons probably get ****ed for it if they choose the worse candidate. Guessing they change how they vote if they personally experience how much voting for the wrong reasons hurts.
• Osayidan wrote on 2010-10-01 22:30

  Quote from Timexpo;172508:

  And, is another matter when discrimination is based on ability? Thats okay? Why is discrimation against anyone okay?

  
  Because certain tasks require certain abilities. The whole process of finding a job is technically discriminating over people's abilities until you come across those who fit what you need. If someone who worked as a farmer his whole life and only graduated high school came to me asking for a job working anywhere near servers I would kindly show him the door and give the job to someone who had a good education and was certified to use the technology in question.
  
  There's so much discriminating in that process that it's ridiculous, but that's why we don't have slaughter house butchers performing open heart surgery.
  
  Voting isn't anywhere near that though, if the person made it ti 18 and can comprehend what they're voting for, then I say go for it. I waive my right to vote because I refuse to participate in choosing between getting f***ed one way or another way. All I know is if it gets too crazy I'm ready to go live in the wilderness somewhere, plenty of survival experience.