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.

 

Don't let ignorant people vote

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Conservatives would score higher on history and finance, while liberals would score higher on understanding social issues.
The test could be skewed.




posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Seems like CNN is behind the curve on its news stories. Just this past week the Catholic TV internet channel called for a benevolent dictatorship - not only ignorant people shouldn't vote, but only persons of faith should vote!Here's the thread: abovetopsecret

There's always some group that wants to restrict voting rights to meet their own agendas.

ganjoa



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


If you can't demonstrate that you are smart enough to get through high school, you can't vote.


Getting through high school proves nothing more than you did your time.
High School is pure rote.
I'd much rather have people without a 'formal education' voting.
They're the ones that know where the rubber meets the road for real.

Good idea, just think with your brain-box open a degree or so more.

peace



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
But, it wouldn't be a democracy if we started to exclude voters based on their "ignorance", would it now? Silencing people because they are ignorant makes no sense to me. What might be ignorant to you or me may not be ignorant to someone else...It's all a matter of perspective.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The founding fathers had a solution to this problem: Only white, male landowners could vote.

anyhow, i'd be more interested in a plan that went something like this.

if you receive a government subsidy/welfare check of any sorts you would not be allowed to vote.
this could include anyone receiving food stamps/welfare to corporations and their ceo's/hierarchy
who benefit from subsidies.
edit on 13-4-2011 by rubbertramp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
sorry guys, my intention wasn't to
kill the thread.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I agree with the article. I am for direct democracy, but with geniocracy/technocracy/sofocracy/meritocracy elements


Peoples ability to analyze and correctly decide complex problems is very varied, we are not all equal in abilities, and to correctly decide whether the law would be good or bad for the society IS an ability. The vote weight of an university professor of successfull enterpreneur should NOT have the same weight as the vote of some uneducated unemployed ghetto "nigga" (MODS: "nigga" refering to lifestyle, not race
). Of course everyone should have the right to vote, just so noone would feel unimportant, but vote weight should be different.

I envision it as such: All voters would propose laws and vote through the internet directly about the proposed laws submitted by other citizens (kinda like internet forum with poll option), BUT the individual votes would not have the same weight - weight would depend on the persons education, maybe test results (both general knowledge, IQ and EQ), criminal record, expertise and degree in the issue the law relates to, longterm uneployment would lower the weight, special achievements like Nobel prize would increase it, maybe it would even depend on income a bit etc..

Democracy 2.0



edit on 17/4/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I have a Ph.D. but some ideologues would call me "ignorant" because I do not advocate their agenda. I'm also not sure I could pass the test that is given to citizens when they want to become naturalized. I understand that it is very, very challenging. I cannot name all the presidents of the U.S. in order, as I could in high school, for instance. That's because, aside from "Jeopardy," I have seldom been called upon to remember.

It seems to me that any "test" should only measure how knowledgeable the voter is about the issues which are being voted on. I see no reason for a civics exam.

In any case, I am absolutely opposed to any "test" being given to any voter whatsoever. That is merely a ruse to suppress the votes of people who don't share one's agenda, and to pretend there is any other motive is to be either malicious or a liar.

"One man (or woman), one vote." That is the American way and I firmly believe it should stay that way. I also think that former prisoners who have done their time should also be allowed to vote. To make them even more powerless than they already are is cruel and unusual punishment.

BTW: I understand the original framers of the laws in America at first wanted to exclude anyone who didn't own land. That was soundly contested and quickly defeated. The framers also excluded women and slaves from the vote, and it took later amendments to the Constitution to give them the right to the franchise. Anybody who claims to be a strict Constitutionalist, as well as everyone else, must respect that.
edit on 17-4-2011 by Sestias because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Isn't the Electoral College there to "protect" us from ignorant voters?

As I understand it one function on the system is to give a politically savvy and educated "elector" the ability to cast the vote of a particular State dependent on what he thought was right. If he felt that The People had made a mistake he could override their wishes and cast the vote according to his superior knowledge.

Course, I figure this is REALLY in place as one final level that TPTB can exert their control.

EDIT: Found a reference to what I was talking about.

The design of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:

Each state would employ the district system of allocating electors.
Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of President and Vice President.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 17-4-2011 by LazyGuy because: Added reference



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by uSNUUZuLUUz
 


define ignorant



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I got a better idea

How about a test for those in and or running for office to insure they know the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How about a test to insure they arent wholey owned by the Banks, Corps, Unions, and other special intrests? How about a test to weed out the Communists and Fascists?

How about making sure our elected have a clue what THEY are there for?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by uSNUUZuLUUz
 


I see 2 main problems immediately, there's obviously going to be more.

No taxation without representation, how many rich folk who know their 1 vote won't have an effect in their district would suddenly get themselves declared dumb because those lucky dumb folk won a high court case on the no taxation without representation clause and are exempt from all taxes.

What happens to veterans of war in the service of their country who suffer head or psychological trauma and now are incapable of passing whatever test of intelligence is required to be passed to get the right to vote.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
The founding fathers had a solution to this problem: Only white, male landowners could vote.

anyhow, i'd be more interested in a plan that went something like this.

if you receive a government subsidy/welfare check of any sorts you would not be allowed to vote.
this could include anyone receiving food stamps/welfare to corporations and their ceo's/hierarchy
who benefit from subsidies.
edit on 13-4-2011 by rubbertramp because: (no reason given)


That is exactly the type of ignorant attitude, displayed by yourself, that I would endorse not being able to vote.

Ignorance is, to a certain degree subjective. What would be more effective is to fix the corrupt system, because no matter how many "smart" people vote, it will always essentially be a choice between a "giant douche and a turd sandwich" so long as TPTB are allowed to keep hand selecting/funding these corrupt feckless politicians.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Let's just work on keeping the stupid from breeding. The voting will take care of itself.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat

Originally posted by rubbertramp
The founding fathers had a solution to this problem: Only white, male landowners could vote.

anyhow, i'd be more interested in a plan that went something like this.

if you receive a government subsidy/welfare check of any sorts you would not be allowed to vote.
this could include anyone receiving food stamps/welfare to corporations and their ceo's/hierarchy
who benefit from subsidies.
edit on 13-4-2011 by rubbertramp because: (no reason given)


That is exactly the type of ignorant attitude, displayed by yourself, that I would endorse not being able to vote.

Ignorance is, to a certain degree subjective. What would be more effective is to fix the corrupt system, because no matter how many "smart" people vote, it will always essentially be a choice between a "giant douche and a turd sandwich" so long as TPTB are allowed to keep hand selecting/funding these corrupt feckless politicians.


where to start on the corrupt system?
lobbyist financial influence would be a good start?




That is exactly the type of ignorant attitude, displayed by yourself, that I would endorse not being able to vote.


i know per unwritten rules i'm supposed to return the favor and call you ignorant, guess i'm just not in the mood.
sorry.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
i know per unwritten rules i'm supposed to return the favor and call you ignorant, guess i'm just not in the mood.
sorry.


I was not the one to make the statement that anyone on "welfare" shouldn't be allowed to vote. Me pointing this out, does not make me ignorant. However, the idea that all people who are on some form of welfare should automatically be barred from voting because that somehow means they are all a bunch of uninformed ignoramuses...is in itself ignorant. This would include anyone over 65 (medicare/social security), all disabled people, any poor people getting food stamps/medicaid, middle class families who insure their children through the CHIP program, any college students getting Pell and other grants, etc. It's the naive, starry eyed and feckless worship of the wealthy elite over the poor and middle class. Essentially saying that all these people deserve to be treated like non-humans and have their voting rights stripped, because they don't happen to have the wealth and resources to do things like insure their kids, pay for college, pay for the huge health care costs required of most of the elderly and disabled, feed their family, etc. (Not to mention the fact that many people in traditionally middle class jobs, including teachers and cops, are now having to rely on food stamps just to get by) (Source)

Also, if you want to get technical about it, you would also have to bar all traditionally Red States from voting as well, as they collect more in Federal money than they pay out in taxes. But I'm sure youre not about to agree to that now are you?
Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Only ignorant people vote.


This is the truth and nuthin but the truth.

If ignorance was not present there would be multiple choices versus duality on a single pole.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
If you pay taxes you should be able to vote regardless of your IQ.

If you pay the salaries of the public officials; you should be able to vote for whoever you deem represents you the best.

Even showing enough interest to actually vote shows more intelligence than most Americans exercise.

www.infoplease.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
The son of a friend of mine went to vote and saw a whole bus load of people being taken in to vote from a facility for people with brain damage. There was a black woman from the facility going into the voting booth and "helping" each and every one of them to vote.

You need to have a license to drive a car.

You need to have a license to fly a plane.

You need to have a license to be a hairdresser, for crying out loud!

But to vote for the people who make the decisions that can destroy this country, you are allowed to vote being brain damaged.

I guess it is only logical.

Brain damaged people voting for brain damaged people.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Instead of an ignorance test, people should be required to take and pass the U.S. citizenship test before being allowed to vote.

It covers the basic functions of the federal government, as well as some very basic history.

If someone fails a test as simple as that, they sure as hell shouldn't be voting.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join