Americans Should No Longer Be Allowed To Vote

a reply to: enlightenedservant

In 1913, the citizens got even more 'power' and gained the ability to directly elect their senators.

How much money has been wasted, campaigning? How many policy issues have been butchered to appease the masses?

Yes, US citizens need even more power. Kanye West is running for president 2020, and by God he will win. Yes, more power indeed.

then.....
the american citizens should no longer be taxed!!!

I keep hearing about all the voters too stupid to be able to vote intelligently...

usually coming from people who are supporting a candidate that just can't seem to speak intelligently.

before we do anything that will start classifying people too stupid to be able to vote. how about we make it illegal for candidates and their parties to just up and lie whenever it's convenient and at least make sure that the people running for office at least knows what the constitution says.
but, you can't condemn the american voters as being unable to vote intelligently when you are failing so miserably at making sure those voters has the means to separate fact from fiction.

that being said....
I've come to conclusion that the way things are now my vote does not count at least not when it comes to the presidential race. the local elections and us congressional seats maybe, but the presidential elections they would do better just to get rid of the electoral college (although it would move us even further away from the constitution). but that isn't a problem of an uninformed populace but rather a problem that our system does no fully represent us, that when the constitution was written made sense, but really doesn't so much in the modern world.

I find it disturbing the call for a general civics test to qualify for anything Government wise. You might as well say Hello 1930's Germany with that logic. But as it always is someones personal opinion of how things should be is cast down upon other's like the person is a gift of enlightenment and knowledge despite its ramification's on those who can't defend themselves and those who unarmed themselves when the information was freely available.

Interesting the echos of 1930's Germany in America right now, the trouble I have is how blatantly dumbed down most of society seems to be of this information. Poor ole right wing conspiracy and white men are nothing more then Jew's of Germany's 1930's holocaust, for if you can single them out and cast all the blame on them along with propaganda paid for by the Government you can turn an entire Country into blithering idiots foaming at the mouth for more controls.

a reply to: dawnstar

I agree completely. It's ironic and disheartening how quickly so many citizens are willing to throw out the "no taxation without representation" ideal when their preferred candidate is losing.

I also agree that there should be something in place to prevent the intentional lying and BSing. However, figuring out what kind of guidelines to add would be difficult because it would conflict with both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There already are other limits to freedom of speech, but I find it hard to believe that politicians would pass a law that forced themselves to be honest with the public.

And yes, we need to do away with the Electoral College and make the presidential election based strictly on the popular vote. This will do away with the whole blue-state/red-state crap and guarantee that all votes actually mattered. Of course, they'd also have to allow a federal agency to handle the presidential election in order to guarantee that all citizens faced the same voting conditions. Currently, it's up to the States, which is why there are vastly different criteria for early voting, voter ID laws, felons regaining the right to vote, etc.

a reply to: GodEmperor

I want neither a plutocracy, nor an oligarchy, nor a monarchy. I like having a say in the system, even if only a little.

And ironically, Kanye West would be nowhere near as bad as Clinton or Trump lol. So your example is already a good improvement over our current 2 most popular choices. Thanks bro.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
This is something people need to understand, of the thousands of years that democracy has existed, it has failed.

Let's take a look at this years election, we have two likely scenarios,

Scenario A: Hillary Clinton is elected president. It is announced that the elections were so close to going to the other candidate, the guy that would have destroyed the world if us stupid Americans would have elected him, that we can no longer be trusted with democracy on any level.

Scenario B: Donald Trump is elected president. It is announced that the elections were so close to going to the other candidate, the one that would sell America down the river because us stupid Americans were so close to electing, democracy has to be outlawed to prevent the destruction of our nation.

This is not something to consider lightly, we need to consider the possibility that the 17th amendment is bad for America. There was a reason our system was created the way it was, and we are seeing the slow progression of democracy and the multiplying of stupid people taking its' toll on America.

The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

Wikipedia

Got to love the year 1913, the year the evil Federal Reserve was created, and the year we began to elect Senators.

I want everyone to consider the level of technology we have today. Social media has not become the death-knell of the MSM, social media are not some anti-status quo perspective, or non-biased voice of reason. The fringe views are always ignored, the more rational perspectives are not as interesting to read or watch.

Now I want people to consider this:

You Now Have a Shorter Attention Span Than a Goldfish

The explanations are due to the age of the internet/iphone. By itself, does not seem too terrible, so we aren't as focused... but...

"The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms."

Alternet

I was a little surprised that, while not good, there is one in every thousand. I did find a Jefferson quote from the above article interesting.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

I guess it's not a matter of whether Americans Should be allowed to vote, if every aspect of the elections are controlled and the general public are unaware, it will placate them. However, people are voting for free stuff, once that happens it's game over, our days of living under a free and open society are gone.

This election has been the curtain pull, anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands this. We have long grown past living under a federal constitutional republic or as the liberals like to call it 'democratic republic'. No, America became the sole superpower since WWII and the collapse of the Soviet Union, America has become an empire, the American Empire; and empires require emperors to rule.

In December, MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, had to explain to Congress several remarks he had made about the “stupidity of the American voter,” as he put it in one speech. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh frequently uses the more diplomatic phrase “low-information voter” to explain why bad policies or incompetent politicians succeed. And numerous polls of respondents’ knowledge of history and current events repeatedly imply the same conclusion––that the American people are not informed or smart enough for democracy.

This bipartisan disdain for the masses has been a constant theme of political philosophy for over 2,500 years. From the beginnings of popular rule in ancient Athens, the competence of the average person to manage the state has been called into question by critics of democracy. Lacking the innate intelligence or the acquired learning necessary for dispassionately judging policy, the masses instead are driven by their passions or private short-term interests.

Source

Interesting article, posted on my birthday so it has special meaning. I am amazed, at how history does repeat itself, it is almost uncanny like time is cyclical.

I just want to end this with a little splash of ancient and some colonial history, Athens and 'the Thirty', democracy at it's finest:

The Council was modified in a way that allowed only the election of oligarchs. Furthermore, its former importance as the coordinator of the administrative machinery of Athens ceased. The real power of decision making was in the hands of the Thirty.

dc.ewu.edu...

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic. -- Benjamin Franklin

I truly believe that Americans cannot be trusted to vote any longer, given the two front-runners we have on the eve before election night. Too many stupid people, that will make political decisions that are not based on any critical thought, but by the commands of whichever corporate media they enjoy.

Sometimes, a nation needs a benevolent dictator to ensure longevity and prosperity. Rome lasted another 1,000 years because of it, and so will we.

You're right, no one should be allowed to vote ever....

But don't look down my friend because

I'm on top of the World. Suck it up while you still can.

omfg.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Spoken like a true republican. How sad they have become.

Never seen a group that Hates the USA and our constitution more than these folks do.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: dawnstar

I agree completely. It's ironic and disheartening how quickly so many citizens are willing to throw out the "no taxation without representation" ideal when their preferred candidate is losing.

I also agree that there should be something in place to prevent the intentional lying and BSing. However, figuring out what kind of guidelines to add would be difficult because it would conflict with both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There already are other limits to freedom of speech, but I find it hard to believe that politicians would pass a law that forced themselves to be honest with the public.

And yes, we need to do away with the Electoral College and make the presidential election based strictly on the popular vote. This will do away with the whole blue-state/red-state crap and guarantee that all votes actually mattered. Of course, they'd also have to allow a federal agency to handle the presidential election in order to guarantee that all citizens faced the same voting conditions. Currently, it's up to the States, which is why there are vastly different criteria for early voting, voter ID laws, felons regaining the right to vote, etc.

I'm sorry, but popular vote is just ruling by mob. Just because a majority agree on something does not make it right. What we need is a more informed electorate and term limits to get career politicians out of office.

The only thing I'd change about our electoral college is that every state gets one vote. This way, we don't have a handful of states deciding who wins and more populous states don't over ride the middle America.

a reply to: Edumakated

In other words, you want less democracy too? Every State having only one vote would be a slap in the face of democracy. Wyoming, with less than 600,000 American citizens, would have the same power as California, which has almost 38 million American citizens. I thought conservatives were against special favors for a minority population?

Do you know how each State's electoral college votes are calculated? It already gives States with smaller populations more power per citizen than the States with higher populations. Here's a nice video that explains it.

Also, the problem with an uninformed population lies directly with the school systems. This just means we need to add more civics classes into the curriculum so that our students will be well informed by the time they reach voting age.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Edumakated

In other words, you want less democracy too? Every State having only one vote would be a slap in the face of democracy. Wyoming, with less than 600,000 American citizens, would have the same power as California, which has almost 38 million American citizens. I thought conservatives were against special favors for a minority population?

Do you know how each State's electoral college votes are calculated? It already gives States with smaller populations more power per citizen than the States with higher populations. Here's a nice video that explains it.

Also, the problem with an uninformed population lies directly with the school systems. This just means we need to add more civics classes into the curriculum so that our students will be well informed by the time they reach voting age.

America is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.

So if all the white folks decide to get together and make segregation legal again are you going to accept it because after all, it is the popular vote? If Trump wins the popular vote, but loses Electoral college are you going to then say Trump should be President?

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

The majority is not always right. Our founders understood this which is why the system was designed in its current form.

The fact 38 million people live in CA does not mean they can run roughshod over the needs of the 600k in Wyoming.

a reply to: Edumakated

Spare me the fake concern. When conservatives were the majority, they did everything they could to disenfranchise and silence minority groups. But now that they find themselves in the minority, they suddenly change course. Typical.

Besides, your examples are bad because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which ended Segregation) was passed by a majority in Congress. And since it is backed by the 14th Amendment, any law or referendum to reinstate forced racial segregation would just get struck down by the judicial branch. Or did you forget about that? I never once said the judicial branch should be abolished or watered down, so this system of checks and balances would stay in place.

And clearly I wouldn't have a problem with a candidate winning the presidency if they won the popular vote. Otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it.

The fact 38 million people live in CA does not mean they can run roughshod over the needs of the 600k in Wyoming.

I agree 100%. And that's exactly why Wyoming has a State executive branch, a State judicial branch, and a State legislative branch. And guess what? Californians don't get to vote in Wyoming's elections and Californians have no influence whatsoever on Wyoming's State matters. Or did you forget all about State and local governments?

But since we're talking about the federal government, that government represents all Americans. And since California contributes an overwhelmingly higher amount to the federal govt than Wyoming, they should definitely get proportional benefits from it.

love adam ruins everything great video ^

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: GodEmperor

Spoken like a true republican. How sad they have become.

Never seen a group that Hates the USA and our constitution more than these folks do.

I had to write in my candidate. Which makes you more Republican than me.