Do you think citizenship / suffrage should be more restrictive? (Poll)

[Carmen813]

I can't answer your question specifically, but Garfield did create a novel proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem#Garfield.27s_proof

Haha, touche!

I guess when I use the term "founding fathers" I tend to think not only of the "big names" who signed the Declaration and created the Articles of Confederation/Constitution, but also the individual soldiers who fought in Washington's Army. To that end, I don't think they were all the most educated people in the world, but they certainly could recognize corruption and had the will to act.

 

[woolfe9999]

Instead of trashing the Constitution and disenfranchising people who certain blocs don't want to see voting, here is a novel idea: how about improving the American educational system so that we don't have so many ignorant people voting?

Just a thought.

- wolf

 

[Carmen813]

Instead of trashing the Constitution and disenfranchising people who certain blocs don't want to see voting, here is a novel idea: how about improving the American educational system so that we don't have so many ignorant people voting?

Just a thought.

- wolf

The majority of voters make a decision based on what they think the candidates morals are, not on what their positions on issues are. I'm not sure a higher IQ would alter that.

 

[Infohawk]

What the OP really wants is a more informed electorate. There is no guarantee that an electorate that can do something like algebra is more informed. Do you think all the founding fathers knew algebra or American citizens who voted in the 1800s? To that end I think your beef should be with the media (cover only what fits our bias) and the way elections in this country are held.

I'm not sure what the original American electorate could do is that informative. Remember only white male property owners could vote. Those aren't my proposed conditions at all. But I am sure if the founding fathers were born today they would have had the curiosity or education to learn basic algebra.

My beef is not with the media. Why? Because I believe in personal responsibility. It should be a citizen's duty to DEMAND to be informed and have a certain level of knowledge. There are sources out there even including Wikipedia which are more detailed than the garbage the media dispenses. The media is the way it is because that's what numbnuts across the land want.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with public education providing everyone with what is necessary to pass my fictional citizenship test. Public education allows people to learn algebra and reading today but many people simply fail to take advantage of it.

 

[Carmen813]

I'm not sure what the original American electorate could do is that informative. Remember only white male property owners could vote. Those aren't my proposed conditions at all. But I am sure if the founding fathers were born today they would have had the curiosity or education to learn basic algebra.

My beef is not with the media. Why? Because I believe in personal responsibility. It should be a citizen's duty to DEMAND to be informed and have a certain level of knowledge. There are sources out there even including Wikipedia which are more detailed than the garbage the media dispenses. The media is the way it is because that's what numbnuts across the land want.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with public education providing everyone with what is necessary to pass my fictional citizenship test. Public education allows people to learn algebra and reading today but many people simply fail to take advantage of it.

The point is that those original American voters would probably fail the citizen ship test you are proposing.

The "people" who fail to take advantage of public education are often children. The kids (4th and 5th grade) I tutor in the inner-city are supposed to be learning pre-algebra. I can assure you they've got bigger problems, so how much personal responsibility can you expect from a 9-10 year old? I'm not sure how much personal responsibility you can expect from an 18 year old. Broadly speaking, a person's frontal lobe (where things like logic and reason operate) continue changing rapidly through their early 20s.

You need to consider the idea that you have privileges that allow you opportunities to be more informed than a great many of the people who would fail your "citizenship" test. Many don't have computers or internet access. You could argue that they could go to a library, and they could, but many have more pressing concerns. If you don't own a car a trip to the library could easily consume an entire day.

Frankly I blame the media a great deal. A free press is essential for a healthy democracy, but it isn't a privilege that should be taken so lightly or treated with such a lack of respect.

 

[MotF Bane]

The majority of voters make a decision based on what they think the candidates morals are, not on what their positions on issues are. I'm not sure a higher IQ would alter that.

We can hope.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The argument is that if you go back far enough, and not all that far for most of us, your ancestors were in the exact same position as more recent immigrants are now. Why is it OK for us to slam the door on everyone else once WE'VE made it in?

A country should do what is in it's best interest, what is in the best interest of it's citizens.

The reason it's OK to "slam the door on everyone else" is because it's no longer in our best interest, as it was way back when, to accept large numbers of immigrants. We have limited resources (e.g., water) and space among other things.

Immigration should be handled on our terms, and for our benefit.

Times change and many liberals think that our understanding of the Constitution should change, well same for our immigration policy.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Do you think citizenship / suffrage should be more restrictive?

I'd get rid of that part of 14th that automatically grants citizenship to anyone born here. It's archaic and no longer serves any useful purpose. It also encourages illegal behavior - illegal immigration - something no law should do. It can also be said to unfairly advantage citizens of certain countries (those which are contiguous or nearly so); I.e., it's discriminatory to most other citizens who wish to immigrate here. For all practical purposes we have two unequal systems; that's unfair and contrary to our principals. All those wishing to immigrate here should have the same rules and standards applied to them.

Fern

 

[FoBoT]

i support the Robert A. Heinlein model, all Veterans get TWO votes 😛

 

[OBLAMA2009]

all nations should just be dismantled and a world government should be set up. that way the planet could deal with things like hunger, immigration, ecomomics, political conflicts etc...

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i support the Robert A. Heinlein model, all Veterans get TWO votes 😛

you mean just because youre lunatic enough to go out and slaughter a bunch of people in the name of your country? im sure the world would be a lot better off with people like that in charge...

 

[Genx87]

I am for making it easier for people to become citizens. It really doesnt make sense to restrict able body non criminals from becoming a citizen of this country.