Voter turnout. Should legal residents be forced to vote?

[fskimospy]

I agree it is a right, it is just frustrating that the average voter likely has no idea where candidates stand on issues. That is a huge problem. Most simply vote because they feel one of the two parties represents them better than the other, without know where either candidate stands on issues they (the voter) cares about.

But, I am also in the camp that I believe anyone who knows which way they are going to vote before the the candidates are announced is an idiot. Nobody is really liberal or conservative on every issue.

Very few people are actually issues voters, including the people on this board. Even those that consider themselves informed often conduct extensive rationalizations in their mind to achieve the desired result. Funny thing is that the more political knowledge someone has, the more likely they are to be a party line voter.

 

[fskimospy]

I would think that multiple constitutional amendments making it illegal to restrict voting based on various characteristics contradicts that claim.

Nope. You're a moron.

Just because you have a right doesn't mean that a right cannot be subject to restrictions just like speech, gun ownership, etc.

 

[Cozarkian]

It's funny that everyone complains about how the parties run candidates that are beholden to special interests, etc. One of the big reasons that happens is because activists and special interests mobilize votes.

The problem is those special interests mobilize voters by providing one-sided statements, rather than seeking to educate the voters so they can make an open-minded choice.

 

[sm625]

Politics is simply dead in this country. There is no real interest in it from top to bottom. What most of us see as politics is really just a twisted bastardization rife with corruption. Instead of going to someplace to vote, why isnt there a vibrant online community built around voting? I'm not jsut talking about a site where you can go vote online, that much is a given. I'm talking about a site that not only lets you vote, but also links polling results, funding sources, news articles, and debate results all organized by candidate, with a reddit style self regulation.

Ask yourself why nothing like this exists. Because our political system is dead.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is those special interests mobilize voters by providing one-sided statements, rather than seeking to educate the voters so they can make an open-minded choice.

My argument would be that voters don't make open minded choices regardless of what information they are presented with.

 

[Matt1970]

Furthermore, voting is a right that all of us have by virtue of being citizens. We are under no obligation to pass anyone's test in order to exercise this right.

And the second amendment?

 

[fskimospy]

And the second amendment?

SCOTUS has struck down literacy tests for voting as unconstitutional. They have not done so for tests for firearm registration. One is unconstitutional, the other is not.

If your question is 'why don't we regulate the right to own firearms identically to the right to vote?' I would answer your question with a question: "Are you retarded?"

 

[nehalem256]

SCOTUS has struck down literacy tests for voting as unconstitutional. They have not done so for tests for firearm registration. One is unconstitutional, the other is not.

Wrong

In 1959, the U.S. Supreme Court held that literacy tests were not necessarily violations of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor of the Fifteenth Amendment. Lassiter v. Northampton Election Board (1959). Southern states abandoned the literacy test only when forced to do so by federal legislation in the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided that literacy tests used as a qualification for voting in federal elections be administered wholly in writing and only to persons who had completed six years of formal education. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 suspended the use of literacy tests in all states or political subdivisions in which less than 50 percent of voting-age residents were registered as of November 1, 1964, or had voted in the 1964 presidential election. In a series of cases, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the legislation[9] and restricted the use of literacy tests for non-English-speaking citizens, Katzenbach v. Morgan. Since the passage of this legislation, black registration in the South has increased substantially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

 

[Matt1970]

SCOTUS has struck down literacy tests for voting as unconstitutional. They have not done so for tests for firearm registration. One is unconstitutional, the other is not.

If your question is 'why don't we regulate the right to own firearms identically to the right to vote?' I would answer your question with a question: "Are you retarded?"

I guess in your case it depends on which rights you agree with.

 

[fskimospy]

I guess in your case it depends on which rights you agree with.

Nope, it just comes down to the fact that different rights are regulated differently.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Furthermore, voting is a right that all of us have by virtue of being citizens. We are under no obligation to pass anyone's test in order to exercise this right.

Nonsense. We have that right because a piece of paper says so and that piece of paper has been changed lots of times. Some rights are removed, others are added and others are changed. None of them are etched in stone and any "right" that turns out to cause more harm than good is on the chopping block. It's always been that way and always will be that way. An ignorant, ill-informed electorate does more harm than good and it should be cut away like the cancer that it is.

 

[Matt1970]

Nope, it just comes down to the fact that different rights are regulated differently.

Oh BS. You want absolutely no regulation whatsoever on voting. Any attempts to do so are repeatedly met with "Racist" or "suppressing the black vote" blah blah blah.

 

[nehalem256]

Nope, it just comes down to the fact that different rights are regulated differently.

Seems like another way of saying that all rights are illusions that can be regulated away.

 

[tommo123]

they are

 

[fskimospy]

Nonsense. We have that right because a piece of paper says so and that piece of paper has been changed lots of times. Some rights are removed, others are added and others are changed. None of them are etched in stone and any "right" that turns out to cause more harm than good is on the chopping block. It's always been that way and always will be that way. An ignorant, ill-informed electorate does more harm than good and it should be cut away like the cancer that it is.

Speaking of doing more harm than good, attitudes like this just ended up leading to the people in power finding ways to keep their opponents from voting. Now that's a cancer that should be cut away, and it was.

 

[smackababy]

Speaking of doing more harm than good, attitudes like this just ended up leading to the people in power finding ways to keep their opponents from voting. Now that's a cancer that should be cut away, and it was.

Yes, but until someone takes a hard stance and equates this to what it really is, that won't happen. Disenfranchising people, rigging elections, etc should be considered treason in my opinion. Throw them all in jail for the rest of their lives.

 

[nehalem256]

Speaking of doing more harm than good, attitudes like this just ended up leading to the people in power finding ways to keep their opponents from voting.

Translation. If we only allow quality people to vote liberals have no hope of getting elected.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, but until someone takes a hard stance and equates this to what it really is, that won't happen. Disenfranchising people, rigging elections, etc should be considered treason in my opinion. Throw them all in jail for the rest of their lives.

Well considering that aiding an abetting illegal foreign invaders apparently isn't considered treason anymore good luck with that.

 

[DrPizza]

I voted for Obama.


NEVER. AGAIN. EVER.

A regular Constitutional scholar! That's right! Obama can only serve two terms as President.

 

[Cozarkian]

My argument would be that voters don't make open minded choices regardless of what information they are presented with.

That raises an additional problem, but it doesn't justify not giving them the information in the first place.

 

[Rakehellion]

Forcing people to vote would just add another layer of verification to the voting process.

People should be encouraged to vote, not forced.

The candidates should be inspiring enough to encourage people to vote.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, sportage thread.

 

[boomerang]

When did the left become such control freaks? Or, has it always been the case and I'm just taking more notice? So much of their platform is based on forcing people to do things. To submit to their will.

We need to force people to vote.

We need to force people to understand the issues and the consequences of their vote.

We need to force, force, force.

People eventually rebel against Fascism. It's the wait until it happens that is so arduous.

 

[Spungo]

That times 1000. If there were minimal requirements for voting and people who didn't meet the standards were locked out of voting it would be taken more seriously.

In theory, I fully agree. In reality, this test would be used to throw out votes. Example: what's Romney's position on anything? Nobody has any idea. He was constantly saying conflicting things. Is he for abortion or against abortion? He took both sides. Does he support Romneycare or is he against Romneycare? He took both sides. Regardless of how someone answers the test question, their vote can be thrown out. The power to throw out votes would be abused immediately.

Even fact-based testing would be abused because different people know different things. If you wanted to throw out the votes of democrats, the test would have questions about basic economics or accounting. If you want to throw out republican votes, include some elementary school science questions.

Another problem is that things politicians say don't accurate reflect what they will do. Obama said he would close Gitmo, but he didn't. The 2012 voting test might ask his position on Gitmo (because the government takes more than 4 years to change a test question). Do you answer correctly and say he supports Gitmo or do you write that he's against Gitmo because that's what the correct answer would have been in 2008?

 

[zanejohnson]

no. definitely not.

it's your right to be an anarchist, and not voting, is a legal way of going about this. (i vote, for the record, but i'm able to entertain ideas without necessarily believing in them)