Debate Thread: Round Two: Mandatory Voting

[eriador]

I understand why you (and others) would like factual proof, however I prefer to debate "from my gut." I feel that having to pull all sorts of outside information into it would take away from the debate. I also didn't feel that factual backup was neccessary, because, when refering to the past, it was an undisputed fact everywhere I'd read, and when referring to the present, it was an opinion.

That said, I do understand where you're coming from.

[Young Val]

I understand why you (and others) would like factual proof, however I prefer to debate "from my gut." I feel that having to pull all sorts of outside information into it would take away from the debate. I also didn't feel that factual backup was neccessary, because, when refering to the past, it was an undisputed fact everywhere I'd read, and when referring to the present, it was an opinion.

That said, I do understand where you're coming from.

the supporting evidence is not for you, but for the others in the debate. i have not read what you have read.


but, the debates here aren't the place for me anyway. i get so riled up.

[Eaquae Legit]

While I see the merits of this choice, it is decidedly not a good idea. Too many people who either can't read, can't read/speak English well, are bad test-takers, etc., will be excluded. It essentially violates the same principle of freedom that forcing people to vote would: all mentally competent (e.g. no dementia or retardation), unjailed American adults have the right to vote. They can choose to, or they can choose not to, as long as they're citizens. Otherwise you create a privileged ruling class or the beginnings of a totalitarian system. It's not perfect, but it's about as good a balance as you can get.

As a matter of record, adults with mental disabilities, even severe ones, still retain the right to vote. Most don't, because they don't understand and their caregivers are too conscientious to use them, but they do have that right.

***

And a debate, by its very nature, demands evidence. If you can't cough it up, you lose. Anecdotal evidence counts for nothing in serious debate.

[hive_king]

One thing that I think should be done to encourage people to vote is to make Election Day a state holiday. For one, this would reinforce psychologically the importance of voting (wow, voting must be a big deal, we have an entire day off for it!) For another, it would help alot of people who don't have the free time in their busy day, especially in crowded precincts. Though, admittedly, this new holiday wouldn't be much help for people working on political campaigns, like me.

[anonshadow]

Everything I say is said from my point of view, and unless I explicitly say it is fact, it should be interpreted as such, because I am often wrong. However, I will edit to point out that that is my view of American public education.

---Edit---
Actually, I don't need to edit any of them. In every case i said "I think" or "in my view." Not a single one was stated as fact.

What I did state as fact was that the education system was started to make citizens good voters, which I heard my US History teacher say yesterday in class, and is a widely accepted fact.

But your view is wrong.

150 years ago, half of the adults of people in this country could not vote, and most were not really educated. Literacy rates were not high. It was hell to get teachers to the South the teach the freed slaves, and they certainly did not provide the best in the way of education later on, after schools had opened. Segregation in schools and giving black kids very little in the way of resources to learn did not prepare them to be good voters--and half, at any rate, couldn't vote.

Which brings us to another issue in your argument--as I said above, 150 years ago, half the adults in this country could not vote. How was school preparing women to be good voters when they couldn't vote? How did it accomplish its task better then than it does now? It seems to me that it automatically does that job better now.

Up until the early-mid 1900s, many kids did not go past the eighth grade in terms of education, and when they did, it usually meant that their families were well-off. In an era where minimum wage was nothing and most the wealth in the United States was concentrated among a few individuals, education was not the thing on the mind of most people when they thought about supporting their families.

Today, while that has not disapeared, it is better--and I think that that helps to breed better voters.

Additionally, you are wrong in saying that the education system was started to turn people into good voters--while that was certainly part of it, another huge part was to try to integrate immigrant children into the American way of thinking, and to try to ensure that they learned English.

Corporal punishment is (largely) not used in schools anymore. Myself, I think that this is a definite improvement. Literacy rates are up from, oh, 1856. They're even up from 1956. Children are required to stay in school longer.

Now, I am not defending this education system as being good, but it is better than the education system of 1856 and the time period surrounding that.

Arguing with your gut is not the way to win a debate. Why? Because you need facts to back your opinion up. If there are no facts to back your opinion up, it is worthless.

[anonshadow]

One thing that I think should be done to encourage people to vote is to make Election Day a state holiday. For one, this would reinforce psychologically the importance of voting (wow, voting must be a big deal, we have an entire day off for it!) For another, it would help alot of people who don't have the free time in their busy day, especially in crowded precincts. Though, admittedly, this new holiday wouldn't be much help for people working on political campaigns, like me.

Do we think that about Columbus Day?

[hive_king]

is Columbus Day even a bank holiday?

I think that it would be a bit different than columbus day because it's a day off so you can do a specific thing, not a day off honoring someone.

[anonshadow]

I suppose. I'm not sure people would see the significance, but it probably would help raise voter turnout.

[vendor]

Not much more than 150 years ago only literate, white, male, well-to-do land owners, with honorable ancestors were permitted to vote.

I like the holiday idea. I am in favor of imposing a fine of $200 for not voting. The money generated can go to the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant program (pell grants). Give post-secondary education to those who might not otherwise have the opportunity due to their financial circumstances.

The poor (those who many think are ignorant) will vote, but they will be educated too.[/url]

[eriador]

Not much more than 150 years ago only literate, white, male, well-to-do land owners, with honorable ancestors were permitted to vote.

Well, begining about 180 years ago the expansion of sufferage (the right to vote) began. At first it was, as you said, only open to literate, white, male, land owners, but slowly those restrictions disappeared. Much of the expansion of sufferage accompanies the growth of the education system. A couple points are the expansion of sufferage to include women, which came around the same time as women's education started becoming much more equal with the education provided to men; and the amendment to the constituition that prevented denying a vote based on race, which came around the same time that schooling for african americans was integrated (at least I think so, I'm too lazy to find dates).

So it seems to me that the restrictions of voting 180 odd years ago only prove my point.

P.S. I'll try to dig up hard facts and post them in an edit. If I'm totally off in somthing I've said, please point it out, 'cause I'm kinda shaky on dates.

[anonshadow]

Not much more than 150 years ago only literate, white, male, well-to-do land owners, with honorable ancestors were permitted to vote.

Well, begining about 180 years ago the expansion of sufferage (the right to vote) began. At first it was, as you said, only open to literate, white, male, land owners, but slowly those restrictions disappeared. Much of the expansion of sufferage accompanies the growth of the education system. A couple points are the expansion of sufferage to include women, which came around the same time as women's education started becoming much more equal with the education provided to men; and the amendment to the constituition that prevented denying a vote based on race, which came around the same time that schooling for african americans was integrated (at least I think so, I'm too lazy to find dates).

So it seems to me that the restrictions of voting 180 odd years ago only prove my point.

Women gained the right to vote in 1920. While they had been fighting for it since the 1800s, it was only given 86 years ago, which is not a restriction that is as outdated as you suggest.

The bit on African-American intergration into the same schools white attend coinciding with their ability to vote is just flat-out wrong. The fifteenth amendment, which granted the right to vote no matter what your race, was passed in 1869 and ratified in 1870. Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka did not go before the Supreme Court until the 1950s, where they handed down the famous decision that stated that seperate but equal was unconstitutional and inherently unequal. Ruby Bridges was the first black girl to attend a white school and desegregate it, and that did not occur until 1960--a mere 46 years ago.

Before that, no black child attended a white school, and no white child attended a black school.

Schools are still far from desegragated. While there aren't laws segregating them anymore, there are definitely irregularities.

Where 77% of people in the United States are white, 62% of students in public schools for the 1999-2000 school year. By 2004, that had further dropped to 57% overall, with variation in different geographic areas (64% Northeast, 74% Midwest, 54% South, and 43% West).

[suminonA]

...what would these "tests" be on? candidate's age? party? scandalous past? who administers this test? how is it graded?

resticting the right to vote based on whether or not the voter in question passes a test?

this idea is ridiculous.

Thanks for your vote of confidence

It all depends on what the voting is about. Are we voting people (i.e. individuals), are we voting the parties, are we voting the ideologies, or what?

I don’t know what the case of most people is, but I think that being [edit]at least [/edit] “minimally literate” about the issue being voted is not a bad idea.

So we should begin with education. Based on that, people would decide if they really are interested in the issue, or they prefer not to vote (incidentally, I’m against mandatory voting). Then, those interested should involve in some activity related to that (a class in political basic ideologies for example) or discussions in “ad hoc” forums where they can find out the specifics they need to know about the issue.
So the test would not be about details like the age of the candidates (I hope that was a joke ), but about what their platform means, basically, what is supposed to change and what would remain untouched, what the elected candidates can do and what they can’t.

I understand that there are lots of people who “can’t read” but are able to form an opinion on politic issues, or poor enough not to afford formal education, and that they still have the right to vote. But on issues that affect the life of society on the whole, those informed (and interested!) should decide. You may see this as an elitist propaganda, but what I’m talking about here is not removing the uninformed from the process, but informing them and allowing them to make a worthwhile contribution to it.

I would give up the test all together if that’s what bothers you. But if we are talking about “mandatory something” related to voting, then I’d choose mandatory education first.

A.

[Dr. Mobius]

And a debate, by its very nature, demands evidence. If you can't cough it up, you lose. Anecdotal evidence counts for nothing in serious debate.

As long as the I Said So Theorem is still good...

[Mahatma]

As a matter of record, adults with mental disabilities, even severe ones, still retain the right to vote. Most don't, because they don't understand and their caregivers are too conscientious to use them, but they do have that right.

Ah, my bad. Thanks. That does support my point anyway!

[eriador]

anonshadow,

Thanks for correcting me. I'll give up the point on black americans, (I wasn't even sure when I posted that). However, the point of women is valid, even if it was only in the 1920's that they were given the vote.

The main point of that post was that in the 19th century, as voting rights expanded, so did the education system. Even though I couldn't point out any major milestones (because voting rights were controlled by the states), it seems that the growth in sufferage mirrors that of public education.

[mr_thebrain]

manditory anything when in regards to voting is just a bad idea. goes against the whole freedom thingy.

honestly i think the best thing we as citizens can do is do our best to inform others about the facts about the candidate choices. because i think a lot of people don't vote because they don't know who's best. there's a lot of information being thrown at you on the tv, and radio, and a lot of negative campaigning that confuses a lot of people. and quite often people don't know where to look for quality factual information on their choices.

And try to inspire as many people as we can that each vote matters and voting is a good thing.

[Young Val]

...what would these "tests" be on? candidate's age? party? scandalous past? who administers this test? how is it graded?

resticting the right to vote based on whether or not the voter in question passes a test?

this idea is ridiculous.

Thanks for your vote of confidence

It all depends on what the voting is about. Are we voting people (i.e. individuals), are we voting the parties, are we voting the ideologies, or what?

I don’t know what the case of most people is, but I think that being [edit]at least [/edit] “minimally literate” about the issue being voted is not a bad idea.

So we should begin with education. Based on that, people would decide if they really are interested in the issue, or they prefer not to vote (incidentally, I’m against mandatory voting). Then, those interested should involve in some activity related to that (a class in political basic ideologies for example) or discussions in “ad hoc” forums where they can find out the specifics they need to know about the issue.
So the test would not be about details like the age of the candidates (I hope that was a joke ), but about what their platform means, basically, what is supposed to change and what would remain untouched, what the elected candidates can do and what they can’t.

I understand that there are lots of people who “can’t read” but are able to form an opinion on politic issues, or poor enough not to afford formal education, and that they still have the right to vote. But on issues that affect the life of society on the whole, those informed (and interested!) should decide. You may see this as an elitist propaganda, but what I’m talking about here is not removing the uninformed from the process, but informing them and allowing them to make a worthwhile contribution to it.

I would give up the test all together if that’s what bothers you. But if we are talking about “mandatory something” related to voting, then I’d choose mandatory education first.

A.

my post was not a joke. it was deadly serious. the idea of a mandatory "test" that must be passed in order to vote is the joke, in my opinion.

and there IS something mandatory about voting. you must be of age. in the US, that means 18. and you must also be registered. there you go. two mandatory requirements in order to vote.



i agree that voters should be informed, educated, all that. of course they should. everyone in the WORLD should be informed and educated.


but if you're telling me that someone who never went to college shouldn't be allowed to vote, (or anything similar. if you get a D in 12th grade math, can you vote? please) then i must state my opinion: which is that such a notion is utterly ridiculous.


my questions as to what you think should be tested were posed in all seriousness. i know you said you'd drop the idea of testing if that's what i took issue with. but i still don't see what prompted you to suggest it in the first place.

the people of this country, educated or not, have the right to a voice. an to use that voice to determine how they believe their lives should be governed by those that they elect.


presidential debates and the like are made public. anyone who wishes to watch them may do so. a mandatory politics class? mandatory "ad hoc" forums? yet you're against "mandatory voting"?

But on issues that affect the life of society on the whole, those informed (and interested!) should decide.

no.


no. on issues that affect the life of society on the whole, SOCIETY AS A WHOLE should decide.

[suminonA]

my post was not a joke. it was deadly serious. the idea of a mandatory "test" that must be passed in order to vote is the joke, in my opinion.

Hold on. I didn’t mean that I saw the whole post as a joke, just the idea of putting the age of the candidates on a test.
I took your post seriously and that’s why I wrote a lengthy reply.

I think of the voting as a “privilege” not as a “right”. Maybe that’s where we completely disagree. For me, it’s like driving a car. You have to pass a test in order to get a driving license. That way it is safer for everyone who uses the roads (compared with no test at all).

and there IS something mandatory about voting. you must be of age. in the US, that means 18. and you must also be registered. there you go. two mandatory requirements in order to vote.

And how exactly do you justify the age limit? Why is it that up to an arbitrary age (meaning that different states in the world have different limits) that young persons aren’t considered “full citizens”? Isn’t their life affected by the results of the voting?
And the registering, that’s good. There’s where I’d put the test, registering only the CAPAPLE voters

i agree that voters should be informed, educated, all that. of course they should. everyone in the WORLD should be informed and educated.

Ok, on this we agree

but if you're telling me that someone who never went to college shouldn't be allowed to vote, (or anything similar. if you get a D in 12th grade math, can you vote? please) then i must state my opinion: which is that such a notion is utterly ridiculous.

No, maybe I didn’t explain it right. I say that basic education relative to politics should be provided in schools by default. (Math ability would by irrelevant here). And for those that don’t have the means to go to school, yet are interested in learning about the issues, having “ad hoc” forums where that education should be given FOR FREE. No one is turned away. (Yet no one is forced to participate either).

my questions as to what you think should be tested were posed in all seriousness. i know you said you'd drop the idea of testing if that's what i took issue with. but i still don't see what prompted you to suggest it in the first place.

It was a previous sarcastic remark (anonshadow’s) that made me bring this point. The topic of this debate is “mandatory voting” which limits the freedom of choice of the citizens (not to vote might be a choice). What I’m trying to say here is that maybe, by educating the citizens, more would understand the importance of voting (because they understand the stakes) and the participating ratings would grow much higher that any “mandatory participation law” could accomplish.

the people of this country, educated or not, have the right to a voice. an to use that voice to determine how they believe their lives should be governed by those that they elect.

I believe that is true (or should be) in any country / society. But what would happen if the majority of the (actually voting) citizens would be so ill informed that they would choose self-destruction by their vote? Think of voting for a leader who has the power (and the intention) to start a pointless war, impossible to win, that would ultimately terminate the nation. Do you think anybody would vote for that fully knowing about the consequences? If so, then that nation deserves to “self-terminate”. But if there is an educated minority that understands it better and could avoid it, then I’d give that nation a chance to survive. And educating everybody that is interested, and therefore allowing them to decide for the whole (including the “undecided”/uninterested) would be the “solution” I propose.

presidential debates and the like are made public. anyone who wishes to watch them may do so.

Watching a public debate doesn’t guarantee the education, just like attending a physics course doesn’t mean that you understand the workings of atoms and stars. As brilliant as the “teacher” might be, the “student” still needs do get involved, to ask and get answers, to work the subject and to prove (by exam ) that they “get it”.

a mandatory politics class? mandatory "ad hoc" forums? yet you're against "mandatory voting"?

Hmm, do you really think I’m that unreasonable? I wasn’t talking about “mandatory politics class” followed by “facultative voting”. I was talking about “mandatory voting” (which I don’t agree to) preceded by “mandatory proof of ability to vote”.
And even the “default basic education on politics” that I was talking about earlier, should be facultative, but available for those interested.

on issues that affect the life of society on the whole, SOCIETY AS A WHOLE should decide.

The “society as a whole” might be too stupid to allow itself to survive …

A.

[Mahatma]

I think of the voting as a “privilege” not as a “right”. Maybe that’s where we completely disagree. For me, it’s like driving a car. You have to pass a test in order to get a driving license. That way it is safer for everyone who uses the roads (compared with no test at all).

Mmm, but the fact remains that voting is actually a right -- a constitutional right (see Amendment 14, Amendment 15, Amendment 19, Amendment 26, and Voting Rights Act of 1965). As I said before, with restrictions, the democracy will be more like an oligarchy, where only the privileged decide -- much like it was in the 18th - 19th centuries when only white, land-owning males could vote.

[suminonA]

What would you prefer, the oligarchy of the wise or the democracy of the uninformed?

Please note that "my criterion" is not based on material values or physical characteristics. It's about knowledge and responsibility.

A.

[vendor]

Electoral college
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
An electoral college is a set of electors who are empowered as a deliberative body to elect someone to a particular office. Often these electors represent a different organization or entity with each organization or entity represented by a particular number of electors or with votes weighted in a particular way. Many times, though, the electors are simply important persons whose wisdom, it is hoped, would provide a better choice than a larger body.

[mr_thebrain]

never liked the concept of electoral college.

[suminonA]

I don't like this part:

[...] the electors are simply important persons [...][/b]

because "important" is not defined.

Knowledge should be the criterion. And it should be free.

A.

[Young Val]

I think of the voting as a “privilege” not as a “right”. Maybe that’s where we completely disagree. For me, it’s like driving a car. You have to pass a test in order to get a driving license. That way it is safer for everyone who uses the roads (compared with no test at all).

Mmm, but the fact remains that voting is actually a right -- a constitutional right (see Amendment 14, Amendment 15, Amendment 19, Amendment 26, and Voting Rights Act of 1965). As I said before, with restrictions, the democracy will be more like an oligarchy, where only the privileged decide -- much like it was in the 18th - 19th centuries when only white, land-owning males could vote.

thanks for getting there before i could.



A,

i don't actually have the energy to enter wholeheartedly into this debate (my energy is focused elsewhere in my life at this point, and i realize that continuing to disagree with you from such an emotional perspective is essentially useless) but allow me to say this:

at the bottom of things, i think your main concern is that the citizens of this country ought to be more politically informed and involved. i don't think anyone could disagree with this desire. i'm certainly on your side as far as this particular idea.

however, everything that you say when attempting to explain or encourage or endorse or promote this way of thinking is, in my own opinion, utterly ridiculous. you have every right to feel that way, and to continue stumping if you wish. however, as Mahatma pointed out, your views are entirely skewed by your refusal to deal with the facts and laws as they exist within this goverment. some of your plans of action are, at a base level, simply unconstitutional.

And how exactly do you justify the age limit? Why is it that up to an arbitrary age (meaning that different states in the world have different limits) that young persons aren’t considered “full citizens”? Isn’t their life affected by the results of the voting?
And the registering, that’s good. There’s where I’d put the test, registering only the CAPAPLE voters

age is always a difficult thing. drinking, driving, voting. how old is old enough? well, clearly in this country we don't have a single age that encompasses adulthood. legally, 18 years old means adult in the US. but there are things you can do before that age, and things you can't do until after. sure, those are things worth looking at and considering if it bothers you so much. personally, i don't take much issue with any of the age restrictions set. perhaps it's because i'm 24 years old. since i never plan to run for office, the last age restriction i have is that when i'm 25, i'll be able to rent a car with greater ease. i can drive, vote, buy cigarettes and drink. it's easy for me to say that age restrictions don't bother me because i'm past them all.

and of course there are different limits in "different states in the world" by which i assume you meant in different countries. which should be obvious. different governments different laws. different lives. ...i hope you're not saying something along the lines of "one ring to rule them all." because, i mean, honestly, now. running a country is obviously difficult enough. i'm just going to assume that you're not talking world unification and government. i'll sleep better.

young persons lives are certainly affected by voting. just like five year olds are affected by the choices their parents make. the point is, the five year old doesn't get a say til he's all grown up. same goes for the "young people." a five year old can't set his own bedtime, and anyone under 18 can't vote. such is life.


and while you say over and over again that you think there should be a "test" to ensure that only "capable" and "informed" voters are in control of the fate of the country and the remainder of it's non-"capable" citizens, you have REFUSED REPEATEDLY to answer my question outright. what on earth is the material covered in this "test?!?!?!?!" you mentioned something about platforms once. that's it. so, you're saying, if i know that Bush is anti-abortion, then i'm allowed to vote? what, exactly, are you saying, then? in what way is such a test realistic?

improve political education in schools? sure! i tooks civics in high school. i took AP us history. i took plenty of other classes on our country and its government. a few more won't hurt. by all means. improve education in GENERAL.

but you still talk about this mysterious "test" as if it were an applicable option, and yet when i ask you what will be on it, you defer my question. if you truly believe in the idea of this or SOME "testing" or proof of...what? capability? proof of being informed? what does that mean?

and my related questions still stand. who administers this test? is it essay? scantron? do you take it in school? outsided of school? who makes up the questions? not a politcal party i hope. you have to put together a commitee. how do you ensure that the commitee is not politically influenced? what happens if you fail the test? do you not get to vote? can you be re-tested? if so, can you be re-tested immediately, or must you wait for the next election? must you be re-tested EVERY election? earn your right to vote every single time?

i've asked some of these questions, and others, in previous posts, and you continually brush over them. but these are serious questions that have immense importance in regards to your personal opinion.

if you continue to endorse this, or any similar idea, oughtn't you to think about them, and perhaps prepare a few answers?

i'm not playing devil's advocate, either. i'm sincerely appalled at your desire to restrict the right to vote.

fortunately, you, like every other educated or uneducated citizen of this country (assuming that you are a citizen and are registered and of age) are able to vote. so your opinion has its place in this country, and can be heard. isn't that lucky?


and a touch ironic?

[suminonA]

i don't actually have the energy to enter wholeheartedly into this debate (my energy is focused elsewhere in my life at this point, and i realize that continuing to disagree with you from such an emotional perspective is essentially useless) but allow me to say this:

at the bottom of things, i think your main concern is that the citizens of this country ought to be more politically informed and involved. i don't think anyone could disagree with this desire. i'm certainly on your side as far as this particular idea.

Young Val, I understand that you have other concerns right now, I read other treads too. I hope it all goes well for you. I hope I don’t add to your problems with my “technicalities”.

My main concern on this issue is indeed information and implication. What I don’t like is that there are so many that claim their right to vote but then don’t use it and just complain that there are no “good options” so it’s better not to vote at all. I’ve seen to many people saying something in that vein, as a result of their ignorance on the particular candidates and political situation, and not as a result of a thorough analysis of it.
This comes down to responsibility. If you don’t want to elect any candidates, because they aren’t worth your vote, then maybe you should candidate yourself and bring the solutions that all want (and ask for) but nobody offers.

I hear often: “I don’t like any of the present options, but I don’t have any better of my own either” and it makes me scream inside. If I have such a precious right to vote, then I should use it or just admit I'm not responsible enough to make a choice. And then let the others choose for myself.

With that in mind, here is my answer to your points:

however, everything that you say when attempting to explain or encourage or endorse or promote this way of thinking is, in my own opinion, utterly ridiculous. you have every right to feel that way, and to continue stumping if you wish. however, as Mahatma pointed out, your views are entirely skewed by your refusal to deal with the facts and laws as they exist within this goverment. some of your plans of action are, at a base level, simply unconstitutional.

I know my particular views on this are unconstitutional at present in most of the countries of the world. But I defend an idea that I think would be a better alternative to the present “law”. That’s why we’re having this debate, aren’t we? Even the Constitution can be changed, if enough people demand and agree to it.
[joke]Maybe we should take a vote about that [/joke]

and of course there are different limits in "different states in the world" by which i assume you meant in different countries. which should be obvious. different governments different laws. different lives. ...i hope you're not saying something along the lines of "one ring to rule them all." because, i mean, honestly, now. running a country is obviously difficult enough. i'm just going to assume that you're not talking world unification and government. i'll sleep better.

Don’t worry, I meant “country” when I said “state”. I agree that each nation has the right to defend its rights

Incidentally, what do you think about the scenarios that OSC described in the Ender series (especially Shadow)? Do you see it as unacceptable? I see it as a very plausible future (with or without formics to fight).

young persons lives are certainly affected by voting. just like five year olds are affected by the choices their parents make. the point is, the five year old doesn't get a say til he's all grown up. same goes for the "young people." a five year old can't set his own bedtime, and anyone under 18 can't vote. such is life.

Would you agree to changing the age criterion with a capability one? If you’re able to drive a (real) car at the age of 10, then do it. If by the age of 80 you’re not capable anymore, stop driving. Such is a better life.

and while you say over and over again that you think there should be a "test" to ensure that only "capable" and "informed" voters are in control of the fate of the country and the remainder of it's non-"capable" citizens, you have REFUSED REPEATEDLY to answer my question outright. what on earth is the material covered in this "test?!?!?!?!" you mentioned something about platforms once. that's it. so, you're saying, if i know that Bush is anti-abortion, then i'm allowed to vote? what, exactly, are you saying, then? in what way is such a test realistic?

Now don’t get too excited. You win more with patience than anything else, at least when you’re dealing with me
I’ve seen your initial question(s) and gave an answer, that you find insufficient. I didn’t see your REPEATED questions and that would be the only reason to ignore them. But if you tell me that my previous answer is not enough, I’ll try to develop it a bit.

What should be on the test? I don’t know, exactly. I don’t claim to be qualified to decide that. I gave some “guidelines” about the platforms and ideologies, plus the “promises” of the candidates and their “plausibility”. I think there are people studying political science that could find relevant points to put on the test. I’d trust them as I trust the medical doctors, even knowing that they are only humans and can make mistakes. Yet they are more knowledgeable on their field than I am. At least I suppose that the test would compile the important points that are relevant for the poll. (If the candidates cannot affect the abortion-issue in any way but promises a change, that should be common knowledge and a separate part of the test )


Maybe it would help talking about examples. The one you proposed: “Is candidate X anti-abortion?” is a good one.
The possible answers to that should be “yes/no/don’t know”. But it should also ask how important is it for you, and how much is this particular point influencing your vote.
It’s not exactly the knowledge that you have that is tested, but how are you using it. For instance:
If the point is very important for you and you are right about that fact about each candidate, then you win “capable voter” points.
If the point is important, but you have it wrong about the candidates (or you don’t know), then you lose some points. (If you have it all wrong it would be against your own interest to vote )
And if the matter is irrelevant for you and you admit that you don't know, that should not affect your points.

And if there are no important matters on the test for you, then you should not vote at all, because “the difference” that your voice would make won’t affect you (because you declare that it’s all irrelevant for you), but would affect the others.

What do you think about this kind of test?

but you still talk about this mysterious "test" as if it were an applicable option, and yet when i ask you what will be on it, you defer my question. if you truly believe in the idea of this or SOME "testing" or proof of...what? capability? proof of being informed? what does that mean?

The test would prove that you know “what are you doing” when you go to vote.

and my related questions still stand. who administers this test?

That’s the tricky part. Because the “administrators” would be citizens also, their political views could affect their job. Yet I see it as a scientific job, the construction of the test should be based on “proven” history (as far as the ideologies go) and proven facts (statements of the candidates for example). It would be an un-governmental official body prepared for that that purpose. I know the winners always write history, but that’s a limit we can’t overcome.

is it essay? scantron?

Definitely multiple choice kind of test. The essays are good in the classroom, where most of the education could be found. Yet in order to become a “certified voter” you need to “pass” the official test.

do you take it in school? outsided of school?

Well, you should take the test where you vote.

who makes up the questions? not a politcal party i hope. you have to put together a commitee. how do you ensure that the commitee is not politically influenced?

I answer this above, about the “administrators”. As long as the principles and the content of the test are scientific in nature, I won’t worry about political influence.

what happens if you fail the test? do you not get to vote?

Obviously, that’s what the test is there for.

can you be re-tested? if so, can you be re-tested immediately, or must you wait for the next election? must you be re-tested EVERY election? earn your right to vote every single time?

Yes, you can be re-tested, in a limited period of time established before-hand.
There might be several levels of “competence”. The basics of the ideologies don’t change every time. So you get a “basic level of competence” once you get that education (and pass that specific test). Then, every time the candidates change their platform and promises, you need to be tested on the specifics every time, to show your competence on the issues at hand.

i've asked some of these questions, and others, in previous posts, and you continually brush over them. but these are serious questions that have immense importance in regards to your personal opinion.

I’m sorry if it seems to you that I’m “continually brushing over” your questions. I make the effort to answer most of the points that are addressed to me. If I miss one, please remind me of it.

if you continue to endorse this, or any similar idea, oughtn't you to think about them, and perhaps prepare a few answers?

I agree with you. I’m doing an honest effort to do it right.

i'm not playing devil's advocate, either. i'm sincerely appalled at your desire to restrict the right to vote.

I’m sorry you see it that way. What I’m advocating here is giving sufficient knowledge to all those interested in voting. But letting those (many) that have no idea what are they doing decide for those (few) that know better, that is appalling to me.

fortunately, you, like every other educated or uneducated citizen of this country (assuming that you are a citizen and are registered and of age) are able to vote. so your opinion has its place in this country, and can be heard. isn't that lucky?

and a touch ironic?

It would be greatly ironic every time I’d fail the test.

A.

[StealThisName]

Take a look back at Labor Union history. Most laborers are under-educated by definition and would probably fail your test. But they have drastically altered history for the better. Most laborers do not have the time to go to your "Voter Education" classes either. The idea of "mandatory" anything is ludicrous in the extreme. If you want to raise voter turn-out, lower the voting age to 16, when you can get your license to drive. Mandatory voting is obviously a constitutional violation, but we don't seem to care about that so much these days, and fining the poor (those most likely to abstain from voting) for realizing very few people even claim to support their causes seems wrong, (most politicians claim the working class as their project) no matter where the money is going.

[suminonA]

Most laborers do not have the time to go to your "Voter Education" classes either.

You mean they have the time to form an opinion, but don’t have time to inform themselves about it? It’s not like the test is about all the subtleties of every doctrine there ever was. The test is about the basic facts that affect that opinion, so when you have an opinion it means that you know what that is about, doesn’t it?

A.

[StealThisName]

No, I mean they don't have time to go to a little class somewhere on the other side of town and spend an hour and a half being lectured by some random volunteer about things they can read about in their morning paper.

When we start treating our citizens as kindergarteners, we have a serious breach in protocol.

[suminonA]

No, I mean they don't have time to go to a little class somewhere on the other side of town and spend an hour and a half being lectured by some random volunteer about things they can read about in their morning paper.

I have never said that participating in a “little class somewhere on the other side of town” would be mandatory. Everyone can get information the way they please. The test is about having the minimum knowledge and about the way one uses it.

A.

PS: what do you mean "breach in protocol" ?

[StealThisName]

The test is about having the minimum knowledge and about the way one uses it.

A.) The way one uses it?
B.) Who decides minimum knowledge?
C.) I believe last time this was attempted in the United States was during the Civil Rights Movement in the South to discourage Black voters. The courts ruled this unconstituional. (to be fair, I am lazy at the moment and have not found a site to confirm this for you. Sorry.)

[suminonA]

The test is about having the minimum knowledge and about the way one uses it.

A.) The way one uses it?
B.) Who decides minimum knowledge?
C.) I believe last time this was attempted in the United States was during the Civil Rights Movement in the South to discourage Black voters. The courts ruled this unconstituional. (to be fair, I am lazy at the moment and have not found a site to confirm this for you. Sorry.)

A) Yeah, like voting knowing about the issue or not.
B) I’ve covered that in a previous post, I’ll give a quote if you can’t find it.
C) Why is that relevant? Do you think that’s what I’m getting at? What part of what I said sounds to you like discrimination on criteria other than knowledge?

A.

[eriador]

No, I mean they don't have time to go to a little class somewhere on the other side of town and spend an hour and a half being lectured by some random volunteer about things they can read about in their morning paper.

When we start treating our citizens as kindergarteners, we have a serious breach in protocol.

But we do treat them like kindergarteners, when they're in kindergarten. In other words, we should use the public education system more.
I think the need for voter education is obvious, but we already have the mechanism in place to educate all of our voters. If we were to reform our education system to better educate our voters, then most of our problems will be solved.

[mr_thebrain]

dude, the problem with teaching others about the whole process is that people tend to taint the truth with their opinions.

teachers... especially public school teachers don't always know everything they teach. hell, most of it is from the book. beyond that, the teachers will be all "well i'm a republican, and i'm going to convince you to be one too"

that's part of the reason i hated those types of classes. everyone has their own agenda.

[eriador]

Well, that's one of the things we need to fix.

[mr_thebrain]

don't you realize that you'll never be able to fix point of view?