30 Jun 06
Originally posted by Conrau KPersonally I think there should be restriction on who can post... and I think you can finish the rest of this by yourself.
Should we have them?
Personally I think there should be restriction on who can vote. Just from observation the majority of any nation is stupid. So should stupid people be allowed to vote?...stupid people make stupid votes (insert joke about George Bush.)
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by Conrau KThere should be no restriction on who can vote. I believe that there should be a better education system so that the voters are better-informed, but I'm pretty sure that the people should have a say in who goes to the whitehouse, house or the senate, or any other post of that nature. Although I am no admirer of Bush, he WAS elected (at least the second time), and the nation will get what they asked for.
Should we have them?
Personally I think there should be restriction on who can vote. Just from observation the majority of any nation is stupid. So should stupid people be allowed to vote?...stupid people make stupid votes (insert joke about George Bush.)
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by WajomaSo you are saying that the upper class should essentially be allowed to rule the country, chosing who goes to the whitehouse and who doesn't? Due to the unbalance with money when it comes to the US, if a member of the lower-middle class were allowed ONE vote, then a member of the upper class would get at least ten! Bill Gates would get about a hundred thousand (becasuse of his amazing donations), which might be interesting, but would make him more powerful than what one might wish in a democracy. The other way, you would take the lower class OUT of government completely, and, if you include public schooling as a state benefit, then you would take out quite a bit of the middle-class as well, which would not be nice, since a large sated middle class is what usually prevents revolutionary conditions.
Who pays for the guvamint should be who gets to vote for guvamint. So on net if you've paid more tax than benefits received you can vote. Could also have a tiered sysyem so that those who have paid the most tax will get two or more votes.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by WajomaFinally a government of the rich by the rich for the rich.
Who pays for the guvamint should be who gets to vote for guvamint. So on net if you've paid more tax than benefits received you can vote. Could also have a tiered sysyem so that those who have paid the most tax will get two or more votes.
The world will probably look good when its tranformed into Singapore using your formula!
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by Conrau KOh, come now, everyone should be allowed to vote. The way to stop people from casting stupid votes is to stop putting stupid choices on the ballot. Therefore, the Republican Party should be removed from the ballot. People would have a choice between the Democrats and the Green Party. The end result? All the votes cast would be "smart" votes.
Should we have them?
Personally I think there should be restriction on who can vote. Just from observation the majority of any nation is stupid. So should stupid people be allowed to vote?...stupid people make stupid votes (insert joke about George Bush.)
You see? In my plan everyone gets to vote, and the net intelligence of all the voters skyrockets.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by rwingettYou're a genius 😵
Oh, come now, everyone should be allowed to vote. The way to stop people from casting stupid votes is to stop putting stupid choices on the ballot. Therefore, the Republican Party should be removed from the ballot. People would have a choice between the Democrats and the Green Party. The end result? All the votes cast would be "smart" votes.
You see? In my plan everyone gets to vote, and the net intelligence of all the voters skyrockets.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by rwingettHow about also putting on the requirements for a presidential candidate "may not have the intellectual capacity of a peanut"?
Oh, come now, everyone should be allowed to vote. The way to stop people from casting stupid votes is to stop putting stupid choices on the ballot. Therefore, the Republican Party should be removed from the ballot. People would have a choice between the Democrats and the Green Party. The end result? All the votes cast would be "smart" votes.
You see? In my plan everyone gets to vote, and the net intelligence of all the voters skyrockets.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by VapataConsidering that almost everybody has at least the intellectual capacity of a peanut (and people who have a higher capacity still have the capacity of a peanut, just not only that), that would leave us with Bush again.
How about also putting on the requirements for a presidential candidate "may not have the intellectual capacity of a peanut"?
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by NordlysI hate it when things come out wrong...
Considering that almost everybody has at least the intellectual capacity of a peanut (and people who have a higher capacity still have the capacity of a peanut, just not only that), that would leave us with Bush again.
01 Jul 06
Obviously people in this thread have never heard of the term "uneducated masses."
Of course, passion rules out reason and none of you will realize that the US system of government does in fact restrict who can vote. We may vote for a representative, but only the representative votes on important issues. Hence, there is a system already in place.
Like I say though, it feels much better to say "everybody should vote," than to really look at the consequences of that policy.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by DraxusI believe in educating the masses, and providing a minimum level of education, but it seems to be quite a novel idea.
Obviously people in this thread have never heard of the term "uneducated masses."
Of course, passion rules out reason and none of you will realize that the US system of government does in fact restrict who can vote. We may vote for a representative, but only the representative votes on important issues. Hence, there is a system already in place.
Like ...[text shortened]... tter to say "everybody should vote," than to really look at the consequences of that policy.