Last edited by Flecco (2008-07-19 05:02:32)
Yup, if not GWB could be president.usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
fixedsergeriver wrote:
Yup, if not Clinton would still be ripping people off in real estate.usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
That's where I was heading with this one. I believe that the right to vote should be earned with both a) a short term of national service in either the military or public services and b) that the potential voter should be tested for the intelligence to understand the decision they make when they vote/choose not to.usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
But of course...drinking in the morning is a very bad habit you know.usmarine2 wrote:
fixedsergeriver wrote:
Yup, if not Clinton would still be ripping people off in real estate.usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
We essentially have that already: if you have diminished mental capacity you can't vote.Flecco wrote:
That's where I was heading with this one. I believe that the right to vote should be earned with both a) a short term of national service in either the military or public services and b) that the potential voter should be tested for the intelligence to understand the decision they make when they vote/choose not to.usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
They already had that. The test had three parts:usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
I was thinking more an intellectual type test. Because a lot of people here in Australia at the last election voted for Rudd/Labour just to get some change. Although it does raise the question of who would set the test.chittydog wrote:
They already had that. The test had three parts:usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
1. Do you have a penis?
2. Are you white?
3. Do you own land?
That's what I wanted to spark a debate on... Should everybody get an automatic vote?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Besides which, no matter what you do your initial statement is true: everyone with a vote has political power. The issue is whether everyone should automatically get a vote.
That would be unconstitutional. Just for shits and grins, what would the test consist of?usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
I dont fucking know. I am not a teacher.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
That would be unconstitutional. Just for shits and grins, what would the test consist of?usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
Which is their right. Just the same as I have a right to view both parties as ill-suited, and the majority of the voting public as hypocrites.Flecco wrote:
I was thinking more an intellectual type test. Because a lot of people here in Australia at the last election voted for Rudd/Labour just to get some change.
Without the "clueless" voters Howard may not have won so many elections.Flecco wrote:
Even without the clueless votes they would have won though. Just not by such a landslide.
Which is why voting shouldn't be compulsory.Flecco wrote:
Most of my friends just donkey voted/voted for Rudd because of the great media coverage he got. None of them had a clue about foreign policy, the economy, the health/education system and the rest of it...
I know, that's why I added it as an afterthought.Flecco wrote:
That's what I wanted to spark a debate on... Should everybody get an automatic vote?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Besides which, no matter what you do your initial statement is true: everyone with a vote has political power. The issue is whether everyone should automatically get a vote.
So...........the brothers Grimm fairy tales? Pop culture?usmarine2 wrote:
I dont fucking know. I am not a teacher.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
That would be unconstitutional. Just for shits and grins, what would the test consist of?usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-07-19 08:13:29)
So we need to find a teacher that you deem smart enough to vote, to make a test? Then administer the test. The failures can be given an id card that they are a failure and must never be allowed to register to vote or retake the test. We'll call them liberals regardless of political affiliation. We can tattoo a red F on their chest or maybe a red L.usmarine2 wrote:
I don't fucking know. I am not a teacher.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
That would be unconstitutional. Just for shits and grins, what would the test consist of?usmarine2 wrote:
I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.
Thats for someone smarter than I to decide. I just think it should happen. Thats all I said. I am not here to write a thesis.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Except that the SAT doesn't determine rights, and is an academic test: that is, the criteria is defined as academic merit.
The question we're ultimately asking is what criteria define your ability to vote?
What if YOU don't pass?usmarine2 wrote:
Thats for someone smarter than I to decide. I just think it should happen. Thats all I said. I am not here to write a thesis.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Except that the SAT doesn't determine rights, and is an academic test: that is, the criteria is defined as academic merit.
The question we're ultimately asking is what criteria define your ability to vote?