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.

 

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

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
When I first read this article title I was very skeptical of what it would be, but as I read further the author does make some excellent points. I have always thought maybe reserve the voter pool to those who were in the military or were willing to serve in the peace core or some other commitment made to civil service. The authors idea would also work in my opinion.

Can you imagine that a subset...lets say people on ATS were able to vote and select out next President here in the US. I have no doubt that 90% or more of us could pass a 5th grade civics test. Can you imagine what a difference it would make to have informed voters make the choices for our country? I can guarantee no Bush or Clinton would be elected ever again.

I am not here to argue left or right politics. I simply find this an interesting topic. What is wrong with having to pass a basic civics test or have skin in the game (i.e. paying taxes or civil service). We already don't allow criminals to vote. It would really screw over the elite as well as make their commercials and campaign funding basically useless. Candidates would actually have to win with ideas instead of campaign budgets.

Anyway, I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I assume most of you (U.S. Americans anyway) would be informed and qualified to vote. Also, ATS has a great deal of diversity of ideas, religions, races and the excellent debate that would support, logical, well-informed decision making.

Please politely let me know what you think and share it with the rest of us. We are discussing IDEAS not political affiliations.

Thank you.


If you’re like the majority of Americans, you labor under the faulty and quite ridiculous assumption that everyone should have the right to vote. Even more outrageous, you probably think our nation is somehow benefited when everyone exercises that right. It should be of some interest that our Founders — you know, the guys who came up with this whole “America” idea — had no such notion in mind. They only gave the vote to landowners, which, of course, had the effect of automatically disenfranchising blacks and women.

Thankfully, over the course of the next century and a half, voting was opened to those groups. But somewhere along the way we got it into our silly little heads that allowing whites, blacks, men and women to vote meant we must allow all whites, blacks, men and women to vote. We rightly did away with race and gender discrimination at the polls, but ran too far in the other direction, erroneously deciding that there ought to be no discrimination of any kind. We declared voting a “sacred right,” and the best way to preserve its sanctity, we determined, is to shake the whole mass of the American electorate out of their drooling stupor for long enough to randomly cast a ballot based on which candidate has the nicest smile or most inspiring campaign slogan.

In those early days of America, when relatively few citizens had a say, we ended up with leaders like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. In recent times, with voting open to most adults, and with politicians and celebrities and Hollywood galvanizing the barely sentient hordes to intrude upon the electoral process of a nation they know nothing about, we’ve been subjected to a long succession of tyrants and buffoons in the White House and other elected offices. This all culminated in the record number of chumps who flocked to the ballot box in 2008 and settled on an obscure, corrupt, cliche-spewing left-wing radical named Barack Obama. And now many of those same negligent voters have brought us near the precipice of electing the likes of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders.

Enough is enough, I say. Not that it matters what I say. As a basically informed voter what I say matters less and less with each election cycle. That’s the whole point, after all.

Those in power aim to cancel out the Informed Vote by drowning it in a sea of stupidity and self-interest. They back up their dump trucks and bury the Discerning Minority under a mountain of ignorance and apathy.



Civic duty is a real concept, but our first and foremost civic duty is to be informed, aware, invested, contributing members of society. Alas, that duty proves too difficult for some, so they vote every two or four years and figure that’s good enough. But claiming to have done your civic duty by voting in ignorance is like saying you practiced gun safety by getting drunk and playing Russian roulette.


Link
edit on 2016/3/9 by Metallicus because: Bold Favorite Quoted Line




posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

This would work with vaccinations as well! Only allow the smartest to get them and nature would sort out the rest! haha

Stupid people deserve vaccinations and the right to vote.


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

So let me get this straight. You have put up a link from what seems to be a very biased source, which claims that only morons could have voted Obama in (without mentioning Dubya), and which then claims that the best thing to do is to restrict the vote to those who are 'knowledgable' enough.

Let's see now, where have I heard that before....

Oh yes. Jim Crow. No thanks.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
What about people who pass your litmus test and still vote for what you consider "the ignorant choice"?

Further more, what if you don't pass the government sanctioned litmus test of who is allowed to vote?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

And the best way the "elite" in that system can preserve their hold on power is to always vote for people who keep the masses uneducated......hmm seems like a common theme in Sci-Fi novels.

Stupid idea.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Metallicus

So let me get this straight. You have put up a link from what seems to be a very biased source, which claims that only morons could have voted Obama in (without mentioning Dubya), and which then claims that the best thing to do is to restrict the vote to those who are 'knowledgable' enough.

Let's see now, where have I heard that before....

Oh yes. Jim Crow. No thanks.



Yeah, the article started out reasonable and information.

Went down from there.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Terrible idea. By the way, they are opening up voting to felons around my way. For non-violent offenders, but thats nither here nor there. You hold citizenship you should have a say, not that your one vote means much, but it is a liberty we have. That is a one true freedom we have. This country is far from free, but we should all be able to vote for the change we want.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The people writing this test that must be passed to vote are the people who the test passers will be voting for. Seems like a huge conflict of interest; almost sinister in the vision of it.

I love Starship Troopers. I don't want to live in a Starship troopers world.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
What about people who pass your litmus test and still vote for what you consider "the ignorant choice"?

Further more, what if you don't pass the government sanctioned litmus test of who is allowed to vote?




It's obvious who the biased source considers the "ignorant choice". Whoever doesn't agree with them.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
It would take such a fundamental step back in many peoples eyes for this to happen. Womens vote, minority vote etc etc etc all had to be fought for, there is no way that it will go back to having only a demographic voting regardless of how much sense it may make. You will no doubt just end up with a candidate that offers the most to the certain demographic that voted. More BS more lies the same as ever.

What we do need is better parents that actually have a understanding of values and life experience that can be passed on to their kids rather than this stupid obsession with celebrity and 10 minutes of fame.. There are 10 year olds and teens out there that have no idea what WW2 was for christ sake... We need to make the current and future generations more aware of just about everything as they seem so locked in on so few things.

We also have far to many people that apologise for the actions of others, you can no longer call anyone out on anything that they do wrong, you will be sexist, racist or elitist the list is endless. That is why we have a growing number of people that act in the manner they do, it is because they can get away with it and other people will pick up the pieces.

Apathy is here and IQ's are dropping that tells you the whole fundamentals of this game are flawed.


RA



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Everyone should not be able to vote.

I believe everyone should have to pass a basic civics test like the one we require immigrants to pass to become US Citizens. If immigrants have to know this stuff, shouldn't citizens?

US Citizenship Test

I think it would fix a lot of problems.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year we explored the failure of democracy. How our social scientists brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and established the stability that has lasted for generations since. You know these facts, but have I taught you anything of value this year?
[to a student]
Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.

Service guarantees citizenship.
Would you like to know more?

Kidding aside, restricting who can vote seems broken- we might as well hand over all of the power to a few elite... oh, wait.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
"I ain't lookin for a fight, I'm just saying this article is interesting"

Said all-too-often when people promoting thinly-veiled racism and biased politics post similar threads on this site. Have some chutzpah and just say what you think, lay your eugenics right out there on the line.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
"The government you elect is the government you deserve".
Thomas Jefferson




Civic duty is a real concept, but our first and foremost civic duty is to be informed, aware, invested, contributing members of society. Alas, that duty proves too difficult for some, so they vote every two or four years and figure that’s good enough. But claiming to have done your civic duty by voting in ignorance is like saying you practiced gun safety by getting drunk and playing Russian roulette.

I have posted before that voting is as much a responsibility as a right. I vote R, D or I, after researching bios, past voting histories, platforms, and a candidates proven ability to represent those who voted to office. I don't always get it right, but I can't in good conscious pull a lever without doing homework on prospective candidates, or vote simply on campaign promises or partisan-ism.

Could the system be better? Sure, but contemplating a qualification system isn't the way to go about it, IMHO.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Isn't it a chuckle that the folks who most think of themselves as being worthy of the elite club and/or following the eugenics line of thought are usually the ones least likely to be given the keys to that very kingdom, the restrictive, fascist society they crave?

The average kkk'r wouldn't get into the nearest country club, is what I mean... well, good that folks are striving to "better" themselves, I suppose...



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I'll follow up my last post with this: who gets do decide what the benchmark is? We can't administer a test, because someone has to decide what the questions are. We can't medically scan the brain or diagnose someone's IQ, because someone has to decide what the minimum requirements are. Everyone has a vote, or no one does. That's democracy 101.

You can clamor for your values and your freedom and your good ol' days, but in the end Metallicus and others like him keep trying to deliver us the same old tried-and-true fascism in a new wrapper.
edit on 9-3-2016 by AshOnMyTomatoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
The biggest problem with American Politics right now is not stupid people voting. Our founding fathers gave their lives so every citizen could have their voice heard, the biggest problem is the ardent partisanship that has taken over our political system.

Yes that includes Democrats also.

I used to consider myself a socialist, but over the years I have come to realize that in this country socialism will not be accepted. We have far too many people opposed to it. Our government was built around checks and balances and relies on cooperation from both parties in order for it to properly function, If we were to elect Sanders or Trump, would anything get done? Not likely.

My support for Clinton is not because she's a Democrat, but because she's a centrist. She doesn't want to tax people to death and is also Socially liberal.

“Let me … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party … in [governments] of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.” - George Washington.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus


Politicians and government officials have the public exactly where they want them. Remember the old days of communism where people didn't right away and go home from work in the USSR, they attended and played a part in meetings, commissions and committees determining how the government was supposed to work for them. That system didn't last long as the workers were telling the government what to do about everything. Governments don't like that.

In our system the government doesn't either like the people to be too involved. Less you know about any aspect of the government's doings, the better they like it. Starting wars is an excellent example.

So, yes, an informed body of voters can be a plus for a democracy, but that would be a hindrance to governing. --And who the Hell believes they live in a democracy anymore anywhere?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Have people read and take a test on the constitution.

Then perhaps have them read "economics in one lesson" and take a test on that.

Both must be reread and retested every 8 years.

Ideally it'd be nice for public schools to teach about the enlightenment and how the ideas of locke became the basis of the american republic. Teach what these ideas are, why they are important, and what happens when they are not followed.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus
Rather than restrict voting rights to an approved cadre, would it not serve democracy better to put more of an emphasis on civics in the school system to begin with? Or would that interfere with the real plan, which is to disenfranchise even more voters?
(Oh, and I believe you guys called it the Peace Corps)




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join