Dangerous voters: My case for a required basic knowledge test

reply to post by slackerwire

It is becoming clear to me that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

1. Please show me where I say, "America is a Democracy"

2. I have already explained how this came about. Allow me to quote myself from my above posts.

The reason why felons can not vote is because the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment gives the states clear permission to deny the vote to felons. See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) for more information.

Which still leaves us with what I said at the end of my last post

The FACT remains in order for your idea to work you must make a Constitutional Amendment, or the Supreme Court would have to find that you can legally exclude these "morons" based on an already existing Amendment.

notice how I said OR The Supreme Court would have to find a legal reason to exclude, such as they did with felons based on their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Now you originally said you would comment on the rest of my original post once I explained how your idea was unconstitutional. I think it is fair to say I have done that. Can we move on to the rest now? I am amazed how you disregarded my entire post based on one sentence. That just reeks of a person who is grasping at straws to defend and debate an idea.

Maybe they should run a vote where voters at least have to put a reason for choosing their candidate? Would be interesting how many people were actually able to give one.

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by Quazga
reply to post by slackerwire

 

What you are really saying is that you are afraid people will not vote for the candidate you feel is a decent or less riskier choice. But thats the whole point of an election. To get above the system where individuals decide what makes sense, and to allow the system as a whole to make that determination based on the underlying aggregate of individual choices. And that doesn't require any intelligence on the part of the individual, only the element of choice.

Who they vote for doesnt really matter to me, but more importantly why are they voting for him.

Imagine if every loony bible nut out there actually voted for Huckabee, we would as close to a theocracy as possible here.

And if democracy chose theocracy what is that a failure of? is that a failure? Hitler warned against the folly of democracy, which is why he decided to go fascist as soon as he could woo the power from others. One way or another, we will hand over our individual soverignty to centralized power, democracy just makes us believe we wanted it that way.

Remember the components of the system play by it's rules, they have no ability to do anything that the system wasn't designed to do.

So you proved my point, you don't want someone voting for a theocracy, and you believe that if they were "educated" the way you feel they should be, as opposed to how they have been, that the world will be a better place, but they disagree with you, so who should I believe?

If you had to be intelligent to vote, people wouldnt vote for Bush or the Republicans.

So why would they bring in laws that would remove 99% of their votes?

what difference does it make weather I know anything about the candidate's position on anything...bush ran as a "compassionate conservative"....
turns out he is neither!! as long as what they say is so vastly different than what they do....it's a shot in the dark anyways!

hey I know, can we give our potential candidates the test instead....a lie detector test...if they lie on the test, we'll all know not to trust them?

reply to post by slackerwire
Interesting but denying rights based on intelligence, is dangerous as is denying theories logical consideration for being asserted by stupid people. the best theories sometimes come from looking at things from anuneducated point of view. These "stupid" people Just might not spend their energy learning certain ideas in the way you learn them, they may consider them not worth sacrificing brain power. A NECCESRY EVIL OF DEMOCRACY!!!!!

One Question?

Which party, or government organization will control the design and administration of the test. Which of course will require all citizens to continually attend political reeducation camps to earn their citizenships anew?

Ok two questions, What is your major malfunctioin Pyle?

I keep voting for Snoopy.

He just doesn't seem to win the popular vote.

For people who consider themselves "intelligent" actually to believe that anything that candidates spew out during election time is anything more than mere sound bites and talking points, get a clue. You'd be better off voting for the guy with the best suit than for anything they have to say. They're a bunch of politicians for crying out loud?? I think that woman understood that!

Personally I think Huckabee was a better choice than snake oil salesman romney! At least Huckabee sounds nice and warm like cookies. Plus, he's funny.

Force people to take a test?? On what criteria? And who is anybody to deny another American citizen the right to vote? Those are our inalienable liberties that this nation was founded upon. Hello 14th Amendment anybody??? Constitutional republic and all!

this system would be ripe for abuse.
whoever controls the test, controls who can vote and thus the outcome of an election.

and then think of the expense... imagine printing and distributing then grading those tests.

More wasted time with nothing solved, I am doing my part by adding to it. So may great ideas with no one to take any action, organize and do what is needed. Talk is cheap, life is short, tick tick tick, keep doing what you're doing as will I and we can all complain after the fact.