In Order To Save America, We Must Legally Prevent Oblivious People From Voting

On one hand, this would be an unacceptably elitist curtailing of civil rights and fly in the very face of the premise of democracy (imperfect and increasingly ineffectual though it may be,) which I could never support.

On the other hand, such a restricted voter pool is likely the only way my write in choice - Optimus Prime - would have any hope of victory, much less the funding necessary for NASA and other groups to begin the monumental task of forging and assembling our new god king robot leader, to say nothing of programming the artificial intelligence worthy of Peter Cullen's commanding yet comforting voice.

Difficult choice.

Peace.

a reply to: DBCowboy

LOL I'm just playing/picking. And I agreed with this post, too. Even if I disagree with a citizen's political views, I still think they should have equal legal rights, legal protections, and legal responsibilities.

In other words, if we think they're competent enough to pay the taxes outlined in our laws, they're competent enough to vote on those taxes. And if we expect those adult citizens to be competent enough to follow our laws & government regulations, that means they're competent enough to vote on them.

Oh yeah, and for the people saying we should have citizens pass the US Citizenship Test first, isn't that a little backwards? Instead of treating it as a hurdle, why not make it required teaching in public schools? Shouldn't our public school system focus on teaching its soon-to-be-adult citizens how to become responsible members of society? In other words, I think civics should be a requirement again so that all of our youth will learn these things before they even hit voting age. Then, they'll all be informed voters when they hit legal voting ages, and we won't need to debate things like this.

We should be teaching our citizens how to contribute through the political system instead of blocking them for not already knowing about it.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: DBCowboy

LOL I'm just playing/picking. And I agreed with this post, too. Even if I disagree with a citizen's political views, I still think they should have equal legal rights, legal protections, and legal responsibilities.

In other words, if we think they're competent enough to pay the taxes outlined in our laws, they're competent enough to vote on those taxes. And if we expect those adult citizens to be competent enough to follow our laws & government regulations, that means they're competent enough to vote on them.

Oh yeah, and for the people saying we should have citizens pass the US Citizenship Test first, isn't that a little backwards? Instead of treating it as a hurdle, why not make it required teaching in public schools? Shouldn't our public school system focus on teaching its soon-to-be-adult citizens how to become responsible members of society? In other words, I think civics should be a requirement again so that all of our youth will learn these things before they even hit voting age. Then, they'll all be informed voters when they hit legal voting ages, and we won't need to debate things like this.

We should be teaching our citizens how to contribute through the political system instead of blocking them for not already knowing about it.

In a perfect world, our schools would be teaching this stuff. However, considering that most colleges need to offer remedial courses as so many high school kids can barely read and write these days, I don't have much faith that anyone is going to learn this stuff in high school.

If high schools were doing their jobs, we have a populace more educated in personal finance, economics, politics, etc. About the only politics being taught at high school these days is global warming propaganda and timmy has two daddies.

One could effectively argue that people with "skin in the game" are the very same who have totally subverted and screwed up the system today. Trump and Sanders are both courting voters who see this fact. Those who see that the system is fully rigged to benefit the top .001% - at this point almost exclusively and getting more lopsided with each passing day.

While I know that some here see "skin in the game" as a way of saying "Not on welfare" - the reality is that unless you've got your own super PAC or a few Congressmen who come over to your house to beg for cash? You don't really have any skin in their game at this point.

And THAT is the problem... Not this class warfare bullcrap.

The idea I've been mulling over is a civics test on every ballot: a random selection of 10 questions from the most current citizenship quiz would be put on each one.

www.washingtontimes.com...

A person's vote would be worth the percentage of how many correct answers they got. The more knowledgeable, the more voting power.

Having read the article I am forced to think of 2 things:

1) Buck V. Bell

2) Anne Frank.

3) Iran

For those who do not understand, consider this, back at one time, a person could be sterilized. And all to enforce that was a court determination that a person was feeble-minded. That soon went to include those who were mentally retarded, and even those with eplipsy. It is an interesting read and at one time there were alot of classifications of such. And it was used indescrimentally fully. People like Beck fail to see that the idea that they put into play will have consequences that could end up hurting the entire country for years if not generations to sort out the mess.

The other that is mentioned, Anne Frank, as there is a point in history that we should also consider. You see if Beck and those have their way, they will halt all immigration. You see back before the Holocaust, when there was the rise of the Nazi party, Otto Frank, saw what all was going on, and went through to get Visa's for his entire family. He was turned down, and they moved to the Netherlands. Even the USA, refused such. As the Franks were from a part of the world, that there was a limit on the number of people coming in. It was due to the laws and the forced sterlization laws that were on the books that caused this.

Then there is Iran. The USA, due to its policies created the modern state of Iran, by in 1953, removing its lawfully elected government and instilling a dictator to run the country.

Now before you ask how all of this is realivant, all of these decisions were made by men just like the ones that Beck would see as being the only ones to vote.

But beyond that, consider this, if only the few vote, then the very social contract that is given, for the one freedom that the people have, the right to choose would be removed and thus would be broken. The one thing in this world that is always present, and even sometimes lacking in some parts of the world, the freedom to chose the very people to represent you, is one thing that should never be denied or removed. And yet even today, there are those who are denied such.

In the United States of America, there are over 4 million people who do not have the right to vote or a say in the government, yet they give their lives for the military and service to a country that has seemed to determined that they should not have that right. Ask yourself this: What about the territories that the USA still has, Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Sonmoa? All three of them their people can join the military and fight, yet are denied the very rights to vote, that we all take for granted. They pay taxes, and yet for the very same laws as the ones that allowed for forced sterlization, are denied equal and fair representation.

Let's take it one step further and just kill the stupid people!

I'll go pick up a copy of Mein Kampf from the library.

originally posted by: ArnoldNonymous
Let's take it one step further and just kill the stupid people!

I'll go pick up a copy of Mein Kampf from the library.

It does seem the next step, doesn't it? Funny how folks will stand up for the constitution...as long as it serves them.

a reply to: Edumakated

If you really believe that, you should be agreeing with me that we need to improve the education system. LOL What's the point in a public school system at all if we're not going to use it to prepare our students to become responsible students?

I believe in improving our system, not excluding people from it. I also believe in helping people overcome their weaknesses, not shunning or excluding them because of those weaknesses.

so, you select a few people who the public feels is qualified to decide the merits that all the voters must meet to vote, and let's say that they decide that the voter has to
pass some kind of written test that proves they understand how our gov't works as well as that they can read and write.
maybe they have to be adding to the tax poll by being gainfully employed.
or whatever merits they deem appropriate...
big deal!!! limiting the voter pool isn't going to solve crap because, it's not just those voters who you would deem to be unfit that is voting for mainly their self interests. every politician running is going to work for those measure that favor their self interests, every big business is going to send their lobbyists to washington to meet those people holding public office and they will work with each other to find the perfect deal that not only works in favor of the big business interests, but also the self interest of the office holder.
and well, since everyone of those people sitting on the boards of those big businesses and lobbyists along with the office holders also have the right to vote, and don't tell me that the main idea on their minds isn't what will serve to further their interests...along with just about every other american voter out there!
when compared to all that, those little peon voters that you are so willing to strip from the voting process and leave with no voice aren't the problem!! out of the whole picture, they are the ones with the least power to change anything... and most of them are in such uncomfortable positions, believe me, if they could change the situation, they would!

how about we all this time around go into the voting booths with just one question on our minds.... who will work best to help america as a whole...
not who will do away with our little pet peeves like abortion,
not who will reduce my taxes the most
not who will bribe the best companies into my area with the most jobs
not who will protect isreal the best
not who will protect social security the best
not who will bring god back into the schools...
and I am sure that many of these things that I listed are important to many of us..
but rather, who in the four years in office will leave that office with the country in better shape overall than when they came in?

bush failed at that
obama failed at that
clinton probably failed at that
reagan did
carter did...
nixon was a disgrace in the end..

quite frankly when it comes to this presidential election, I don't think it matter who votes because I think that every candidate running will end up leaving this country with much more damage in one way or the other that we will not ever be able to fix!
so, well, be happy, if I do happen to vote it will be because I found someone running in some of the other offices that I have found worthy to vote for and when it comes to the presidential race it will either be mickey mouse or the weirdo candidate that no one's ever heard of for the president. but I am certainly not going to vote for anyone seeming to be aiming for a christian theocracy, or a con artist (although, who knows maybe that con artist could get the chinese to invest a ton of cash into a few of his casinos and hotels and well, instead just use that money to pay off some of our debt to the chinese.. and hillary, well, just no...
ya see to me, the stupidest voters out there are the ones who keep going to the polls year after year and voting in people who the decide is the worst of the two evils. throwing you support towards evil is never a good idea.

a reply to: Hefficide

Exactly. Going by the "skin in the game" logic, only insiders and powerbrokers should have the right to vote. After all, they have access to the actual international negotiations and "State Secrets" that we don't. And none of us "little people" have a say in things like trade deals, treaties, declarations of war, or the such either.

Edit to add: In fact, wouldn't this same argument justify the superdelegates in the Democratic party? Since those people have more "skin in the game" than the normal voters, they have much more of a say than we do. I thought most people here agreed that this was against democratic values? (not aiming this at you, just the "skin in the game" argument)

a reply to: enlightenedservant


there have been many voters in the past who's educational level has only been at the elementary level, and our country wasn't dragged through the mud like it has been the last couple of decades.... by both sides of the aisle!!!

originally posted by: Hefficide

One could effectively argue that people with "skin in the game" are the very same who have totally subverted and screwed up the system today. Trump and Sanders are both courting voters who see this fact.

One could argue that calling such a premise 'fact' and assigning blame to a small demographic is being oblivious in its own right.

Anyone who votes for the corrupt politician is to blame, not just the people who take advantage of the corruption.

well I'm the captain....of the oblivion express,
and I'm not voting anyway, so....I guess i'm ok with this

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Shouldn't our public school system focus on teaching its soon-to-be-adult citizens how to become responsible members of society? In other words, I think civics should be a requirement again so that all of our youth will learn these things before they even hit voting age. Then, they'll all be informed voters when they hit legal voting ages, and we won't need to debate things like this. We should be teaching our citizens how to contribute through the political system instead of blocking them for not already knowing about it.

Yes ...exactly but as has been mentioned it is not in the governments best interests to have an educated populace especially a politically educated populace, it is a bit of a catch 22....

a reply to: Edumakated

Thanks for the link! I was very interested in seeing how hard it was. Passed with flying colors, but have to admit that I was reminded of Schoolhouse Rock in the 70's. I'm pretty sure the cartoons laid the groundwork for my U.S. Civics and Social Studies classes in high school. Do they even get aired anymore?


As much as I hate the thought of the Honey Boo Boos of the country voting for our President, I don't agree with the author of The Blaze piece. I agree that we, as a country, have fallen short in regard to a good, basic education, critical thinking and common sense (my children are perfect, however!). We can't take away a right that so many fought so hard for! I don't want our country have a caste system or second-class (non)citizens. And who would be the one, or ones, to draw that line?

a reply to: Lolliek

And who would be the one, or ones, to draw that line?

lol.... knowing our luck it would be the lobbyists, what the heck they seem to be writing all the important legistlation of late anyways.....

anyone who hasn't donated this large sum of money into x, y, or z's campaign, just isn't deserving of the vote...

or hey, this one should get some people rethinking about this...anyone who owes more than $100,000 in debt isn't deserving..

since christians first allegiance is to their god, they shouldn't be allowed to vote...

office holders, their families can't vote...

gov't employees can't vote...

or hey, maybe we can let each administration write up their own rules, so well, sometimes this group over here will lose the right, while others times that group will be able to but another won't....ya, that should really screw up the system big time!!

I find irony in the claim that corporate/lobby money buys votes, yet Bush failed to win nomination and Hillary can't shake Bernie.

I don't quite see the problem with requiring a high school level civics exam as a prerequisite to registering to vote. If you're not at a high school level of education, or at a proper level of knowledge on civics, there are FREE adult education programs all over the country. The ONLY thing that would hold someone back is lack of initiative and laziness.

If you can't name the three branches of government, or describe how a bill is passed, then you shouldn't be voting.

This is not the first time people shook their heads and wondered who voted for obama... twice. obama is one of the biggest mistakes this great nation ever made. He rode in to office on the backs of minorities and illegals. Serving military had a harder time getting to vote than many illegals did. That is shameful. I cant vote for the leader of any other nation. Why can citizens of other nations (illegal aliens) vote for ours? Because he promises them handouts, thats why. If illegals voted republican believe me, obama would never let them vote.

I said something derogatory about obama. Right about now there are liberal/democrats lining up to attack me and go on a rant about some conservative. My answer is simple and to the point: nothing you say about anyone else will change what obama is or what he has done. You can run out a list of complaints about any republican you want. It does nothing to address obama or justify his actions.

After seeing his first term, and after four years of "Its Bush's fault" it absolutely amazed me that people refused to admit that 'yes we can' was really 'no we cant'. He said his would be the most transparent administration. He lied. He said he would reach across the aisle. He lied. He said he could balance the budget and solve the employment problem. He lied. We all know the lies about obamacare. His entire administration can be summed up by looking at how he raves about obamacare. "We reached our goals for participation", as if that means something. Yes, he got the participation he wanted; by making it mandatory, fining people who failed to participate, and extending the deadline four times. Gee, make it mandatory and fine people for not participating, then celebrate the fact that you finally managed to get people to participate. That sums his entire administration up perfectly.

And yes, I do wonder if some people should be allowed to vote. We take that away from convicted felons as they do not represent the core values of our nation. Keep criminals from electing other criminals. So what do we do then, when the criminals are the politicians and the corporations who back them? And what do we do when they coerce people who don't know any better and people who shouldn't vote in our elections in the first place?

Anyone who would vote for someone because of their skin color or gender is not actively honoring their civic duty. That is not how you select a world leader. If you don't know any better than that, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote...