Is It Time To Reconsider Voting Rights Yet?

[timhau]

Over here we still have paper ballots in all elections. I once proposed that in addition to the circle where you're supposed to draw the number of your candidate, the ballot should also have four simple questions about the government body that is being elected. For every answer you get wrong, your vote counts 20 percentage points less (so you'll get one fifth of a vote for free as a right, but for the rest, you have to work your way into the 'enlightened electorate' - surely not an overwhelming burden in a country where you have the right to free primary and secondary education).

I was called an elitist (and if knowing that the president is not the supreme judge of the land or that our parliament is the government body responsible for passing laws, then by FSM, I'm happy to be an elitist).

 

[Mumbles]

Harassing voters? What are you refering to?

Groups like True the Vote, who annoy folks waiting in line to vote. And really, there shouldn't *be* a line to vote, given the setup in the US.

And really, I know Fox News milked the hell out of it, but I'd rather not see the New Black Panther Party at a voting place, either.

 

[NoahFence]

Well America, I think it's far past time to admit this whole 'absolute freedom' thing isn't working out too well for us. And nothing brings that to light more adequately than the fact that we have Donald "Incompetent Asshat" Trump as president. What makes it worse is that his only legitimate competition for the job was Hillary "Criminally Incompetent" Clinton.

How is it that only the least qualified people are capable of holding this or other positions of authority? I submit, ladies and gentlemen, is that the least qualified people are deciding who is holding this or other positions of authority in this country. Please note that no, I am not talking specifically about blacks or women or gays or illegals or any other group that conservatives like to target.

I'm talking about your average citizen (of which I include myself when I say 'least qualified') because there's an enormous degree of separation between the common man and the president. Simply put, most people are not informed or qualified enough to be making the decision about who should be running the running the country because they are not in possession of enough of the relevant facts.

If you aren't willing to consider restricting the right to vote to only those qualified to vote then would you note agree that there needs to be a drastic change in the electoral process so that we don't have another Donald Trump in office? Because, let's face it, the whole thing has devolved to the point that calling it a three-ringed circus would actually be an insult... To three-ringed circuses.

Please discus.

Hillary Clinton was probably the single most qualified person to ever run for President.

She didn't win because she's a woman.

Don't bother arguing that, you'll sound stupid.

 

[Mumbles]

Hillary Clinton was probably the single most qualified person to ever run for President.

She didn't win because she's a woman.

Don't bother arguing that, you'll sound stupid.

I'll just co-sign this.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Here's the problem with this.

If our goal is a more educated voter base, restricting voting will run counter to that.

Let's ignore that there is no way to make a workable definition of a "Good voter." Let's just hit the "I believe" button and say that we have some metric to determine who is an educated voter and who isn't. And let's say we run that metric against the voter base and get back a percentage of the voter base that is deemed "an educated voter." That percentage could be 99%, it could be 1%, doesn't matter.

We have now the voting power condensed into a smaller number of people. Each individual voters vote now counts more because they are less voters. So this new smaller group of voters has zero reason to educate the non-educated voters up to the level they meet the metric to be a "educated voter" because all it would do is dilute their voting power and since the voters are the ones who control education and voter reform there is no way out of the cycle.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well America, I think it's far past time to admit this whole 'absolute freedom' thing isn't working out too well for us. And nothing brings that to light more adequately than the fact that we have Donald "Incompetent Asshat" Trump as president. What makes it worse is that his only legitimate competition for the job was Hillary "Criminally Incompetent" Clinton.

Please discus.

Feel free to prove that Hillary committed any crime. Do you have any evidence that the 7+ years of investigations by the GOP and FBI couldn't find?

 

[Loss Leader]

Hillary Clinton was probably the single most qualified person to ever run for President.

She didn't win because she's a woman.

Don't bother arguing that, you'll sound stupid.

Well, she didn't win. I don't know if you can put down her gender as the single cause. Most political science tends to show that the candidate's gender isn't a large factor in voting (although far fewer women even attempt to run for office compared to men, a gender problem all its own).

 

[Foolmewunz]

Hillary Clinton was probably the single most qualified person to ever run for President.

She didn't win because she's a woman.

Don't bother arguing that, you'll sound stupid.

Can I sound stupid? I'm tired of hearing this repeated.

Hillary Clinton was the most qualified:
> In recent elections.
> In elections not including a sitting President.
> Or his vice-president.

FDR in terms 2, 3 and 4 was certainly more qualified than Hillary.
Harry Truman was more qualified.
Tricky Dicky (election of '60) was as qualified.
Lyndon Johnson was more qualified.
Hubert Humphrey was more qualified.
Al Gore was equally qualified.
Bush I was equally qualified.

 

[Mumbles]

Can I sound stupid? I'm tired of hearing this repeated.

Hillary Clinton was the most qualified:
> In recent elections.
> In elections not including a sitting President.
> Or his vice-president.

FDR in terms 2, 3 and 4 was certainly more qualified than Hillary.
Harry Truman was more qualified.
Tricky Dicky (election of '60) was as qualified.
Lyndon Johnson was more qualified.
Hubert Humphrey was more qualified.
Al Gore was equally qualified.
Bush I was equally qualified.

I see no argument here. Clinton was, certainly, the most qualified person I've ever voted for, who wasn't a sitting president (g'bye, Obama in 2012)!

ETA: granted, I'm young compared to many people here...

 

[Foolmewunz]

I see no argument here. Clinton was, certainly, the most qualified person I've ever voted for, who wasn't a sitting president (g'bye, Obama in 2012)!

ETA: granted, I'm young compared to many people here...

I don't mind acknowledging that she was supremely qualified, particularly compared to the entire list of primary candidates for both parties (all four parties).

I just get tired of hero(ine) worship hyperbole.

 

[Belz...]

Groups like True the Vote, who annoy folks waiting in line to vote.

I had to look it up, but just their stated goal is enough to show that, yeah, that's probably harassment.

 

[Belz...]

Hillary Clinton was probably the single most qualified person to ever run for President.

She didn't win because she's a woman.

She didn't win because she didn't energise voters. Can you show that her gender had anything to do with it?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If the problem is that the only two choices were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, then it doesn't seem to me that the root of this problem is that the citizens can't be trusted to vote. Especially since there's evidence that people at the top of the Democratic party who have since been forced to resign deliberately attempted to sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign and that the Clinton campaign deliberately attempted to ensure the Republican candidates were as far-right as possible.

It seems to me there that the issue is these decisions being taken out of the hands of the general public, not that the general public should have even less power.

It also seems to me that the whole idea of a two-party system is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Beerina]

Hillary Clinton was probably the single most qualified person to ever run for President.
She didn't win because she's a woman.

Don't bother arguing that, you'll sound stupid.

That argument has always seemed more rhetoric than reality. A governor of a state, especially the larger ones, would seem to be much more prepared. The foibles of senator-derived presidents, who have never run a truly large organization in their lives, have been noted.

As for foreign policy, Eisenhower cleans her clock. Washington, too. And none of any of this, governors included, means they will necessarily be a good president. Even what that means is up for debate.

Is a good president one who makes deals with the other side to get stuff done? Isn't that what lead to the Tea Party, an insurrection in the Republican party against the Republicans...for going along with the Democrats too much? Isn't that what Bernie was about on the other side?

Gridlock is government working as designed -- the power hungry fighting each other, as they will always do, but in a well-controlled context before the American voter.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't mind acknowledging that she was supremely qualified, particularly compared to the entire list of primary candidates for both parties (all four parties).

I just get tired of hero(ine) worship hyperbole.

Well, yes, I don't think that she would have accomplished all of her goals. But I'm very much in favor of the campaign pledges she stated - and this includes her plan to make police accountable to their communities.

That's not to say that she'd have been perfect. Obama wasn't, GWB wasn't, Bill Clinton wasn't.

I had to look it up, but just their stated goal is enough to show that, yeah, that's probably harassment.

They're awful, in my opinion. I've never had to deal with them directly, here in Maryland, but as someone who would rather see everyone vote, I dislike any group working to harass or disqualify voters.

 

[NoahFence]

Can I sound stupid? I'm tired of hearing this repeated.

Hillary Clinton was the most qualified:
> In recent elections.
> In elections not including a sitting President.
> Or his vice-president.

FDR in terms 2, 3 and 4 was certainly more qualified than Hillary.
Harry Truman was more qualified.
Tricky Dicky (election of '60) was as qualified.
Lyndon Johnson was more qualified.
Hubert Humphrey was more qualified.
Al Gore was equally qualified.
Bush I was equally qualified.

I did say "probably"

Can't a guy use a little hyperbole to make a point?

 

[imodium]

Get rid of figureheads, just have the parties and their policies go up against each other.

 

[Upchurch]

How is it that only the least qualified people are capable of holding this or other positions of authority? I submit, ladies and gentlemen, is that the least qualified people are deciding who is holding this or other positions of authority in this country.

For those times when gerrymandering isn't granular enough, we need other ways for sitting politicians to select their voters?

If you aren't willing to consider restricting the right to vote to only those qualified to vote then would you note agree that there needs to be a drastic change in the electoral process so that we don't have another Donald Trump in office?

I'm all for dumping the electoral college. My vote for president hasn't supported my candidate in about 20 years. However, it would be an uphill battle the whole way.

 

[NoahFence]

She didn't win because she didn't energise voters. Can you show that her gender had anything to do with it?

Call it an educated guess, given her opponent and his supporters.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well America, I think it's far past time to admit this whole 'absolute freedom' thing isn't working out too well for us. And nothing brings that to light more adequately than the fact that we have Donald "Incompetent Asshat" Trump as president. What makes it worse is that his only legitimate competition for the job was Hillary "Criminally Incompetent" Clinton.

How is it that only the least qualified people are capable of holding this or other positions of authority? I submit, ladies and gentlemen, is that the least qualified people are deciding who is holding this or other positions of authority in this country. Please note that no, I am not talking specifically about blacks or women or gays or illegals or any other group that conservatives like to target.

I'm talking about your average citizen (of which I include myself when I say 'least qualified') because there's an enormous degree of separation between the common man and the president. Simply put, most people are not informed or qualified enough to be making the decision about who should be running the running the country because they are not in possession of enough of the relevant facts.

If you aren't willing to consider restricting the right to vote to only those qualified to vote then would you note agree that there needs to be a drastic change in the electoral process so that we don't have another Donald Trump in office? Because, let's face it, the whole thing has devolved to the point that calling it a three-ringed circus would actually be an insult... To three-ringed circuses.

Please discus.

I am against. Democracy is for all people, or none. If the people elects someone not well qualified, then so be it.

What must be done (and is done) is to limit the power of those elected, so there is a limit to the damage they can do.

Also, the population should be educated as much as possible in subjects that will help them make reasonable choices. The media have a great mission here.

hans