Only college educated people should get to vote

I have an idea myself personally, remove political parties. No television, print, or internet advertisements allowed for politicians. All policies and promises of the candidate would be made known, but in order to cast a vote, you'd actually have to research the candidate. No more "Oh there's an R there, that's my guy" or "Always voted D, always will". Although honestly I think that would just turn into a naming competition in the end, who could pass up voting for Hugh Jass ya know?

originally posted by: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
a reply to: Lumenari

If you can pass this test, youre allowed to vote. just one question, real easy.

1. What do i have in my pocket?

You better hope iam not the one who is gonna make that test, good think a test CANT be biased, and made so you ensure only the people you want to, pass it... Iam gonna be on the sides of the "slaves" when they rebel.

~sigh~

The test is already there.

It is the basic civics exam used by our government that immigrants must pass to become citizens.

My new pet name for you is Captain Conflation.

I'm thinking of a simple 1+1 solution and you are screaming "apricot!!!"

/facepalm

originally posted by: Hypntick
I have an idea myself personally, remove political parties. No television, print, or internet advertisements allowed for politicians. All policies and promises of the candidate would be made known, but in order to cast a vote, you'd actually have to research the candidate. No more "Oh there's an R there, that's my guy" or "Always voted D, always will". Although honestly I think that would just turn into a naming competition in the end, who could pass up voting for Hugh Jass ya know?

Already been shot down multiple times by Democrats.

Excellent idea though.

Just make a website with everyone on it, all their positions and their ideology.

Then have it fact checked.

A few of the college grads I know are dumb as a bag of hammers so........ No.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

People who live in cities don't have a say in the nation they live in?

Of course they do.

I'm thinking you need to pass a basic civics test before we go any further...

a reply to: JAGStorm

For the most part I could see your point. But a literacy issue also excludes a good size portion of the population. I graduated high school no college and still manage to lead a very successful life. You guys are going to get tired of hearing me talk about dyslexia.

I have excellent reading and comprehension skills and can I hold my own in just about any debate unless it is in my opponents specialized field .

Immediately when the college “elite” see bad grammar they look down their nose at you. Here’s a good example on the discrimination .

Dyslexia has taught me to keep things simple, to rise above difficulties and to focus on what I’m good at”- Richard Branson Sadly, for the layman, struggling with spelling and grammar is still a taboo, with 9 out of 10 employers claiming it’s the biggest CV no-no, whilst 59% of recruiters will reject a candidate because of bad spelling and grammar. However writing off candidates based upon spelling could mean losing out on a significant amount of talent, with analysis of 20,000 CV’s on Value My CV finding at least 1 spelling mistake in 73% of those tested.

www.goodmanmasson.com...



I’ll use Richard Branson as a sample for grammar

Sir Richard Branson has said dyslexia should be seen as a 'sign of potential', as he attempts to remove stigma around the learning difficulty

Branson, who famously dropped out of school at 16, wrote an article for the Sunday Times in which he spoke about being treated as 'lazy and dumb' by teachers.

The billionaire wrote: "I'd probably fail school exams if I took them today. My spelling, punctuation and grammar isn't great. I struggled to learn.

www.ladbible.com...

Are used Richard Branson as an example both times. Because he’s one of the dyslexics that’s not trying to hide it.

College train people are trained to think critically dyslexics and even many graduates of only primary school think laterally. Which many would classify as dreamers. And it’s been my personal experience that the “dreamers” come up with the ideas for the critical thinkers to go over and take credit for . Lol


I had a few guys that worked for me that were completely just plain illiterate.( not dyslexic )’

Before Tom Tom or other verbal GPS aids. If they went by there self I would have to give them the exit number and count the turns in order to give them directions.

But they were very talented when dealing with the math and had just plain common sense . Enough so that you could put them in charge of a project and forget about them as long as they had someone there to help with reading .


My point is in most cases literacy has nothing to do with intelligence. It’s just supercilious people looking down upon others.


If everyone thought the same way, what fun would that be ? Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Albert Einstein, Oscar Wilde ( from his notes ) and I would bet $1000 Donald Trump. His brain goes in 1000 different directions and has trouble with word selection. That’s a common trait .

I think we should vote by a resume with no name and no picture, and they have to stand by their resume and stances on issues or they get fired.

a reply to: Lumenari

No. I get what you're saying. Hence why the electoral college exists. Actually in fact the electoral college was implemented to favor uneducated citizens. Not what people are proposing here.

What you are basically saying is that people who don't have the advantage of real estate, are worthless and don't matter.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Well, no taxation without representation, so ...

Anyone not allowed to vote shouldn't be required to pay taxes and,

Anyone not allowed to vote should not be subject to any laws passed during the period in which they were prohibited from voting. They would be required to follow laws enacted prior to having their voting rights rescinded, and any laws enacted after their voting rights are restored.

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
a reply to: Lumenari

1918 here in the UK.

We had kinda the same uphill battle you had.

At the request of Susan B. Anthony, Sen. A.A. Sargent, a Republican from California, introduced the 19th Amendment in 1878. Sargent’s amendment (also known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment) was defeated four times by a Democrat-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress in 1919, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed the House in May of that year and in the Senate in June.

History repeats itself if you don't learn it...

Since we are still battling Democrats in the US today.

So I think a basic civics exam to vote would be perfect.

a reply to: JAGStorm

"Only college-indoctrinated people should be allowed to vote"

There, I fixed it for you.

I find that most recent college graduates are far less wise than my plumber.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

No. I get what you're saying. Hence why the electoral college exists. Actually in fact the electoral college was implemented to favor uneducated citizens. Not what people are proposing here.

What you are basically saying is that people who don't have the advantage of real estate, are worthless and don't matter.

The EC guarantees against total mob rule by highly populated areas 😎

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

No. I get what you're saying. Hence why the electoral college exists. Actually in fact the electoral college was implemented to favor uneducated citizens. Not what people are proposing here.

What you are basically saying is that people who don't have the advantage of real estate, are worthless and don't matter.

Still needing that civics class, I see....

Read this and try to comprehend it.

The Electoral College

America’s election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes. America’s presidential election process preserves federalism, prevents chaos, grants definitive electoral outcomes, and prevents tyrannical or unreasonable rule. The Founding Fathers created a stable, well-planned, and carefully designed system—and it works.

The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers. Farmers in Iowa may have very different concerns than bankers in New York. A more federalist system of electing presidents takes that into account.

The nice part about America is every man and woman in it is given the opportunity, through a decent work ethic and a modicum of intelligence, to own a piece of it.

Property.

If you are the type of person who cannot achieve that (which isn't exactly a hard goal) then why should you take part in electing lawmakers?

After all, you may be just electing officials so that you can get free stuff.

Which is free to you, but costs the people that are perusing "life, liberty and happiness" through their own labor.

Is it moral to you to steal other people's money?

If not, then why is it moral to elect lawmakers to do it for you because you don't have the will to succeed?

So why should you be able to vote?

originally posted by: drz400
A true democracy, "of the people, by the people, for the people. There is no need for voting for a leader. No need for one. Only online voted in workers who carry out the work of the votes. Everything could be voted for in real time online. No lobbyists, no ads, only true facts given before a vote takes place.

Too bad this is a representative REPUBLIC and not a democracy. Your idea is no different than pop vote.

no taxation without representation...
if you are gonna deny some people the right to vote then those people shouldn't have to pay any taxes either. and, once retired, the contributions through their life should be enough!

so, who's willing to give up their right to vote for frick or frack in exchange for a tax free life???

a reply to: xuenchen

You're right. But it can also go both ways when only a few can represent a lot.

The state of Vermont has more electoral power than new York right now. Is that fair?

How about only 3rd generation american citizens should get to vote?

a reply to: dawnstar

I don't think many would vote tbh they would take the money.

a reply to: Lumenari

It's not hard to get real estate? Uhh almost 40 percent of americans dont own property of some sort in the us. Guess they're bottom rung. Ship em out. Useless garbage.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: drz400
A true democracy, "of the people, by the people, for the people. There is no need for voting. No need for a leader. Only government voted workers who carry out the work of the votes. Everything could be voted for in real time online.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Which is why our founders abhorred the idea of a direct Democracy.

I personally think that we should go back to the founder's first thoughts on voting though... only landowners should be able to vote.

You know, the people with actual skin in the game.

That's the best way to make sure the people without skin in the game never GET to have skin in the game. Rich people don't care about poor people; that's why they are rich. If they only got to vote, they'd only vote for others that do not care about the rest of the population.