Voting rights?

Originally posted by Wheely
Well in that case nobody needs the vote.

For me, either everyone votes or nobody does.

While I respect your opinion I think it is highly idealized and not realistic. What you are basically saying is that a dictatorship is better than a republic. In a dictatorship no elections are held, only one person holds power, in a republic (like what we have) only an elite few (congress and the house of representatives) vote on any issue of consequence.

The idea of voting though is powerful, I agree with that.

Originally posted by Vapata
Do you deny that pollution is killing off more animals than ever before? Do you deny that there is more polution now than ever before? Do you deny that it is hotter now (the past few years) than ever before? Do you deny that the United States is more focused on building ultra-advanced bombs than on funding medical research? I am not saying that medical scienc ...[text shortened]... it definitely is, but I am saying that it is not advancing as much as it should be (in the US).

No
No
Yes
Totally irelevant to the shockingness or lack of shockingness of the environment.

Originally posted by Wheely
Are you saying that you would not pass the test and therefore that you don't think you should be allowed to vote?

Read what I posted - the test would not be about what kind of person you are, or your politics.

Originally posted by Varg
Read what I posted - the test would not be about what kind of person you are, or your politics.

yes it is. it is a test to see if you are the kind of person who can pass the test. and as i said before, how do you stop people fiddling with the test to select for people likely to vote for them or there issues?

Originally posted by Varg
Read what I posted - the test would not be about what kind of person you are, or your politics.

This is irrelevant and doesn't answer the question.

Do you think you would pass the test or not?

Originally posted by Draxus
While I respect your opinion I think it is highly idealized and not realistic. What you are basically saying is that a dictatorship is better than a republic. In a dictatorship no elections are held, only one person holds power, in a republic (like what we have) only an elite few (congress and the house of representatives) vote on any issue of consequence.

The idea of voting though is powerful, I agree with that.

I don't think I said that a dictatorship is better than a republic.

Your post that I was answering suggested, to me, that we don't actually vote on issues but that elected officials do. It would seem to me that if you have that attitude then you may as well not vote at all.

You really wouldn't want to vote on every issue as you'd never get anything else done. However in the UK you are supposed to vote for a local candidate that will represent you interests in parliament. This seems fare enough to me.

Actually, I DO think a dictatorship is better than a democracy but as that all hangs on the quality of the dictator and they don't have a very good track record, I think democracy is the next best thing.

Originally posted by Wheely
This is irrelevant and doesn't answer the question.

Do you think you would pass the test or not?

You and googlefudge seem to be misreading my posts.

I think I would pass the test.
It would not test what kind of person you are, what your politics are, what football team you support or anything like that - I've already said it wouldn't be a difficult test that only an elite few would pass - but it would exclude those who haven't proved they are worthy to vote.
I'm guessing everybody who has posted in this thread would pass it.
Why should it mean that all people who pass it are the same?
Is everyone who passes a driving test the same?

I've already said it would ensure a level of social, historical and political awareness to prove you are capable of understanding the issues at stake.

Of course, those who fail to adhere to the regulations would have their right to vote suspended (not for parking fines, Wheely, but I'd rather not let the likes of Huntley, Brady, Sutcliffe et al have any say in how things are run).
I don't see what's so heretical here? Of course if you view the right to vote as some kind of sacred cow, then I can see where you're coming from, but I really don't.

Originally posted by Draxus
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.

Well said.

Originally posted by Vapata
I believe in educating the masses, and providing a minimum level of education, but it seems to be quite a novel idea.

Of course, we have to decide how to educate the masses.

For example: do we have an education system that teaches that Unions are a god-send, and truly a benevalent maintainer of freedom, or do we teach that Unions are run by thugs that are indistinguishable from organized crime?

Perhaps we should vote on how we educate the masses before we begin educating them. Of course we need to establish the criteria of who can vote in this preliminary decision.

Alternatively, if we believe we have a good cause, we can just cheaply go out and inflame the passion of the masses with dumbed down arguments that can be easily digested and condensed to a 30 second commercial (or a catchy slogan). It is all in their best interests of course, because my cause is a good cause and my motives are good.

You work on educating the masses, I'll work on my catchy slogans and 30 second commercials.

Originally posted by Wheely
I don't think I said that a dictatorship is better than a republic.

Your post that I was answering suggested, to me, that we don't actually vote on issues but that elected officials do. It would seem to me that if you have that attitude then you may as well not vote at all.

You really wouldn't want to vote on every issue as you'd never get anything e ...[text shortened]... tor and they don't have a very good track record, I think democracy is the next best thing.

Very very true. A dictatorship is much more efficient and effective, but it very much depends on the dictator.

You are right as well about my attitude. Why vote? Voting is an ideal, but is not realistic at least here in the US.

For example:

I live in a republican state. That means that no matter what, most of the people here will vote republican. In a presidential election it is the electoral vote that counts, not the popular vote. In the last election, if I were to vote for Bush, then my vote would have been non necessary, because he will win our state. If I were to vote Kerry, then my vote would have been worthless because it doesn't count towards his presidency because Bush would have won our state anyways, and like I said before, it is the electoral college vote that counts.

There is no reason to vote especially when both presidential candidates are idiots. Every single congressman who runs for office is a douché. Half of the time when the government asks for local issues to be voted upon they don't follow what the people ask them to do.

Representation was a good idea, but it pretty much negates the power of the people.

Originally posted by Varg
You and googlefudge seem to be misreading my posts.

I think I would pass the test.
It would not test what kind of person you are, what your politics are, what football team you support or anything like that - I've already said it wouldn't be a difficult test that only an elite few would pass - but it would exclude those who haven't proved they are worthy to ...[text shortened]... some kind of sacred cow, then I can see where you're coming from, but I really don't.

Varg, you are still imposing your own values on who gets the right to have a say in the way their life is run. In this post you pick a few people that you particularly don't like and deny them the vote.

However distasteful you personally find someone, democracy is absolutly pointless if they are not allowed to stand to have their views accepted by the majority. Anything else IS elitist.

The other point about being able to have some social, historical or political awareness is, exactly as I said, only allowing people like you to vote. Why shouldn't someone who has got no idea about anything except that they want immigration stopped be allowed to express that view?

I don't mean to pick on you as there are many with the same view in this thread but I find it quite narrow minded to restrict people who can vote to a set that you belong to. In this case socially, historically and politically aware people.

Originally posted by Wheely
Anything else IS elitist.

I freely admit it is elitist.
However, as I have said, it would not exclude many people - it wouldn't be so tough that you'd have to be a genius. Why should an ignoramus with have the right to mess things up for the rest of us?

And you keep saying "only people like me", but the criteria would be so wide that "people like me" includes just about everybody anyway.

Originally posted by techsouth
Of course, we have to decide how to educate the masses.

For example: do we have an education system that teaches that Unions are a god-send, and truly a benevalent maintainer of freedom, or do we teach that Unions are run by thugs that are indistinguishable from organized crime?

Perhaps we should vote on how we educate the masses before we begin educ ...[text shortened]...

You work on educating the masses, I'll work on my catchy slogans and 30 second commercials.

You know what I meant by educating the masses. I do not mean filling their heads with propaganda, or anything like it. I would merely like the people to know more about the world's history and be able to understand current events better. That way, people (both Democrats and Republicans) would probably vote for better candidates than Bush and Kerry (really, I have no idea why he was chosen... the most similar one to Bush besides Liberman and Edwards).

Originally posted by Vapata
You know what I meant by educating the masses. I do not mean filling their heads with propaganda, or anything like it. I would merely like the people to know more about the world's history and be able to understand current events better. That way, people (both Democrats and Republicans) would probably vote for better candidates than Bush and Kerry (really, I have no idea why he was chosen... the most similar one to Bush besides Liberman and Edwards).

Certainly I knew what you meant, but was using a little satire (or maybe I stooped down to sarcasm) to illustrate the difficulty. Personally, I prefer Bush to Kerry, but I feel your pain in observing that neither are good choices (and the same could be said of many national and state politicians.

But seriously, even though we agree that the masses are in general not sufficiently educated, I suspect we would disagree on many aspects of what constitutes an education that makes one prepared to vote. A little information about world history does not innoculate anyone from being sucked into inflamed passions over what are really dumbed down points of focus (e.g. flag burning ammendment). I am with you on the ideal, but I don't see how it could be realized on a practical level.

The best hope is to limit the power of government, but even that can't last.

Originally posted by techsouth
Certainly I knew what you meant, but was using a little satire (or maybe I stooped down to sarcasm) to illustrate the difficulty. Personally, I prefer Bush to Kerry, but I feel your pain in observing that neither are good choices (and the same could be said of many national and state politicians.

But seriously, even though we agree that the masses are ...[text shortened]... actical level.

The best hope is to limit the power of government, but even that can't last.

I knew you were being sarcastic, but thought that you were merely trying to make me look ridiculous.
You are right, however my reasoning behind teaching more World History (especially US history) is the following: History repeats itself. 89 years ago, Woodrow Wilson used the phrase "making the world safe for democracy" as a reason to enter WWII. If one were to study the different cultures around the world, perhaps the ridiculous stereotypes (probably not ALL) that there are about different cultures would diminish, and people would not Iran and Iraq as being identical (I don't know why people do besides the name). If people were to be able to draw good or bad prallels between current events and events in history, they would probably be able to have a general idea of where it things were going.
I am not sure if all or any of this would end up working in practice, but I don't think it would do too much harm.