It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should voting for Congress, Senate, and President be restricted?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
It's funny how conservatives are constantly trying to take away people's right to vote while always crying about "liberty". Yet they claim we can't keep dangerous people from having dangerous weapons.

If you think guns can't be regulated then why would you think peoples' constitutional right to vote should be taken away?


You can't keep dangerous people from getting weapons because those dangerous people don't obtain them LEGALLY. I live in one of the most violent cities in the US (Chicago) and we have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. In fact, you cannot even purchase a gun legally in Chicago yet that doesn't stop 450 murders a year committed by thugs with ILLEGALLY owned firearms.

I have no problem with background checks on gun owners. My position between this top and gun control is consistent unlike the liberal position. With rights come responsibilities. I'm not for taking away voting rights in as much as I am for having informed voters. If you want to vote, demonstrate rudimentary workings of our system of government and country.

The liberal position is inconsistent as you nutballs actually argue that requiring ID is suppression of the constitutional right to vote but yet don't seem to believe having restrictions to exercising the second amendment as problematic.




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I think everyone should vote. More often in fact. I think we should vote on the important issues instead of congress. Congress can draft and submit bills and laws for us to vote on. No pork, just one subject for vote at once. Limit size so no 1,000 page bills to vote on without time to read what it entails. No more bribes ( lobbying ) to pass crap for special interest or rich that bribed ( lobbying ) them to pass crap. Lobbyist are not doctors or scientist or citizens. They are pharma companies, oil, ect.. Corporate to get kickbacks from the bribes they give.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated



Anyone can't legally own a firearm... granted you can illegally get one, but you must pass background checks, etc to legally purchase one.

no notin every state in florida, if joe blow wants to sell his gun to johny six pack, no checks required. only if you buy from a licensed dealer
is there a check.

here from the wiki on flordia gun laws.




Firearm sales Florida law permits private firearms transfers between residents without processing through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). The Florida Constitution, Art VIII Sec. 5(b), permits counties to enact ordinances that require a criminal history records check and a 3 to 5-day waiting period when any part of a firearm sale is conducted on property to which the public has the "right of access",[22] such as at a gun show conducted on public property. These local option ordinances may not be applied to holders of a concealed weapons permit/license.[23] Only Broward, Palm Beach, Volusia and Miami-Dade counties have enacted such ordinances.
Gun laws in Florida


also in fl


It is a felony under Florida law to create, maintain or publish any list, record or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners.


edit on 3-1-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
The concept of the government is that we the people find a local who is studied up on the issues. we then send him forward to do all the voting and such for us as our elected official.

Why? because it was known since the beginning that the average joe doesn't know jack about political stuff. we have a job, a life, etc...hard to know the ins and outs when we gotta go milk the cows 8+ hours a day.


So, the system is set up fine. We simply get the government we deserve...we don't have to know the details of every item, but we should get to know the representative we are electing and see if they are at least a knowledgable sort who can best understand and represent the district.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
If you pay taxes and support the infrastructure of this country and it's neverending wars, then you should be able to vote on who and how your money is spent. Anything else is tyranny.

Not to mention elitist BS....


edit on 4-1-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
If you pay taxes and support the infrastructure of this country and it's neverending wars, then you should be able to vote on who and how your money is spent. Anything else is tyranny.


This means only about 50% of the population should be able to vote then since about half the country pays no federal income taxes. I'm good with that. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Newsflash bub .. the entire game is rigged .. voting doesnt mean a damn thing .. it just gives the slaves the illusion they have freedom .. dump the entire corrupt system and exile all the politicians to the antarctic naked ..



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I think uneducated low informed breeders are more dangerous to this world than voters. How many of these idiots are having 5 idiot kids with the same mentality and demeanor. Clogging up the system. Now that scares me.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: olaru12
If you pay taxes and support the infrastructure of this country and it's neverending wars, then you should be able to vote on who and how your money is spent. Anything else is tyranny.


This means only about 50% of the population should be able to vote then since about half the country pays no federal income taxes. I'm good with that. Thanks.


More BS spin....

Sales taxes also pay for the infrastructure as well not just federal taxes...


Why do you want to disenfranchise poor people?

www.taxpolicycenter.org...
edit on 4-1-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
One of the biggest issues with our political system is the low information voter. It is just scary to me that anyone can vote whether they are informed or not. I recently took the test that is required for US Citizenship for fun and it wouldn't surprise me if 75% of voters couldn't pass it. While voting is a right, I also think it is something that should be earned. We have too many politicians promising giveaways to the least informed voters. In addition, I believe every voter should have some skin in the game. It is easy to vote for more government spending and largess when you aren't the one footing the bill.

I know the mere suggestion will cause some people to scream this is tantamount to a poll tax. However, I disagree.

Thoughts?


Citizens have a right to vote. Reality is the middle of the bell curve, the average, will have the most power.

I think it's good this way. Why not?

What's the alternative? Letting the "smart" people in academia run things?

Heck, we can't even convince people it's a good idea for voters to be required to prove who they are when they vote. We'll never get them to take a test.

It's worse on a local level. The winners are the ones who can plant the most signs along the roads near intersections.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: olaru12
If you pay taxes and support the infrastructure of this country and it's neverending wars, then you should be able to vote on who and how your money is spent. Anything else is tyranny.


This means only about 50% of the population should be able to vote then since about half the country pays no federal income taxes. I'm good with that. Thanks.


Everybody pays taxes though. Whether it be property taxes, sales taxes or state taxes, a portion of these taxes get sent by each collecting state to the federal government.

Additionally, as I pointed out in my earlier reply, the criteria that is the basis of the Citizenship test is covered extensively in American middle schools and high schools and tested extensively throughout those school years. What exactly do you mean when you say "low information voter" ? Is it simply someone who you personally believe can't pass the citizenship test or is it someone you disagree with ideologically a' la Rush Limbaugh who loves to use the phrase when belittling those he disagrees with.

What about the low information or low output representatives running for office? Should they as well be held to a higher standard or just the voting populace?

What you're advocating for is amending the US Constitution and to do so you must present a more compelling rationale and explain exactly what it is you mean when parroting El Rushbo



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Seriously? Really. You think there is a difference? It is all a show, they all bow down to their owners. They just have different rhetoric to make you think there is a difference. They appear on different sides of the aisle but sleep in the same bed.

If you don't see that, I feel sorry for you.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
One of the biggest issues with our political system is the low information voter. It is just scary to me that anyone can vote whether they are informed or not. I recently took the test that is required for US Citizenship for fun and it wouldn't surprise me if 75% of voters couldn't pass it. While voting is a right, I also think it is something that should be earned. We have too many politicians promising giveaways to the least informed voters. In addition, I believe every voter should have some skin in the game. It is easy to vote for more government spending and largess when you aren't the one footing the bill.

I know the mere suggestion will cause some people to scream this is tantamount to a poll tax. However, I disagree.

Thoughts?


I am sure you will get a lot of support for this from TPTB, busienss people, shock jocks, social commontaters, collumnists, ediotrs, opinion makers, opinion shapers, politiicans, and most of all,,,,,,, from the sheeple ,,,,,, themselves!!!!



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   
ha ha ha ha. Edumucated. Talk about low information voters? You don't even have the common sense to realize you are one of them.

Tell me. Did you go to college? Graduate school? Have you ever read a book? Yeah, I didn't think so. You are probably some white boy from the south or some unenlightened person from one of the middle states.

Hey what was your GPA in high school? Or did you get your GED from some night college/adult school thingy??

People like you rub me the wrong way.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I think it's more realistic to change how we educate ourselves and our children then to expect change in our political landscape that will benefit us.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
If weeding out the dumb people is the purpose then money shouldn`t be a part of the factor.
A voting test would be the way to go.
When you enter the polling place you take a short 20 question test, the number of questions that you get wrong will determine what positions you are allowed to vote for.
lets say you get all the questions wrong then you will be given a ballot that has only 2 positions which you can vote for, you`ll get to vote for your local sheriff and the local dogcatcher.
If you get all the questions right you get to vote for every position from the president down to your local dogcatcher.

This wouldn`t violate your right to vote even if you got all the questions wrong, you would still have the right to vote for dogcatcher and sheriff.
It doesn`t say that you have the right to vote for the president it just says that you have the right to vote.

the point of allowing people the right to vote is so that they can have someone to represent them in government but if you don`t even know what the candidates stand on the issues is then how can you know if they will indeed be representing your views?
If you can`t even pass a simple test on where the candidates stand on the issues then you have no idea who would best represent your views. voting would be a waste of time for you because you might vote for someone who doesn`t represent you which would completely defeat the purpose of allowing you the right to vote.
voting for someone who doesn`t represent your views would be the same as not voting at all because either way you aren`t going to be represented.
edit on 4-1-2015 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Yes voting,contributing and running for office should be restricted to the lower 99% of us citizens based on income and corps should lose there personhood status and not be allowed to contribute either. At the current rate we are just yrs away from electing wal mart as our next president. It's campaign slogan will be "i was born in america" and the crowd cheers.
edit on 4-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Edumakated

Restricted to who?

...and what would keep it from being restricted even further at some point? Slippery slope, there...



The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



In order to play devils advocate : I would suggest a basic civics test would be a good starting point. If you some prospective from an international point of view on the dangers of one man one vote or "Majority Rule." the history of Zimbabwe since 1980 is where you should start. Majority rule being a positive contribute to a healthy democracy relies on an educated society that understands and embraces the concept of democracy or a democratic society. IMO I can't speak for the USA but the dumbing(SP?) down of New Zealand society does not bode well for the future.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
if the people were truly informed they'd bypass the voting booth and go on to revolt! Really the problem isn't that the voters are stupid in as much as we have a bunch of lying psychopaths with big money backing them as candidates. I got a feeling that the most informed people aren't worrying about taking the voting rights away from the stupid people as much as they are preparing themselves for the sudden impact from the free fall we are in because of the stupidity (or is it just plain greed and corruption) of our elected officials.
Bush/Clinton?? I would rather vote for Mickey Mouse!



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Well, here's my thoughts on the OP. I have been called several times here a low information voter, not because I don't have the information but because I don't see an issue the way another person sees it. I know enough on every subject that comes up in votes that I could write an essay on it, but that doesn't mean I know everything about that issue, compared to some people I am low information but compared to others I am high information. One I bet you didn't know in regards to our border: All along the southern border are Indian reservations that cross into Mexico. The tribes have no resources or desire to police these borders and the US has no legal right to police them. At the one I was recently at they have a 75 mile unsecured border with Mexico, there are no checkpoints when crossing over. How do we solve this issue if we want to secure the border?

At the end of the day, our system is set up so that low and high information don't matter because we for the most part aren't voting on issues, we are voting on representatives. Those representatives have the job of being highly informed and voting for the benefit of their constituents. In many cases, especially lately they have failed but that's not the fault of the voter... it's the fault of the person given an authority position who couldn't live up to it.

So to answer the question, rather than create subjective laws that exclude people from voting, just because why not instead put pressure on the people running and expect them to do a better job? They are the ones letting us down right now, so lets look at the real problem. Going the route you want, what you're going to find is that everyone who is well informed on the issues, happen to also be the most cynical about the entire system... in the end the only people who would be able to vote once we quantify an informed voter is the people who don't want to vote. Then we have a real problem.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join