BF2S Forums Democracy, voting and the great unwashed masses!

usmarine2 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

What if YOU don't pass?

i dont vote

Wow. Irony. Back to your bubble.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Why isn't it for someone smarter than you to decide whether there should be a test at all?

because i do not claim to be a self proclaimed know it all like mason.

I'd be agianst it, it'd be too easy to stick in dubious questions and eliminate people who just see the world differently to the question maker, especially if it involves economics, which is a poorly understood topic at the best of times.

For example, I had a flick through a revison book for the British citizenship test, there were loads of question that I had absolutley no idea about and a couple that were literally wrong. You could fail despite actually being right.

Hehe - I remember a school program in Michigan that was supposed to get the youth to read more. You'd do comprehension tests on each book, and get points (and get stuff for the points). You should do that - have people answer comprehension questions, and according to the points they can vote for higher up positions

-kon

usmarine2 wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

because i do not claim to be a self proclaimed know it all like mason.

So because you don't know things you're qualified to know that there should be a test?

I am not qualified to make up a test.  wtf is your problem.  its as simple as that.  stop playing with words.

There will always be a judgment passed on whoever it were to make up a test of such magnitude. Therefore a test is not feasible. I think a test of might MK style.

PureFodder wrote:

I'd be agianst it, it'd be too easy to stick in dubious questions and eliminate people who just see the world differently to the question maker, especially if it involves economics, which is a poorly understood topic at the best of times.

For example, I had a flick through a revison book for the British citizenship test, there were loads of question that I had absolutley no idea about and a couple that were literally wrong. You could fail despite actually being right.

The US citizenship test looks annoying. I think the hardest question is probably "Who said 'Give me liberty or give me death!'?" (Patrick Henry). And some are ambiguous ("What is the most important right afforded by the Constitution"?). You could argue a number of rights such as free speech, bearing arms, the 4th and 5th amendments, but according to USCIS it's the right to vote.

@Vampire, the history of your country perhaps? I laugh when people act like spreading Democracy is the 'mission' of the US... Washington's last presidential speech warned future presidents to not get involved in European affairs.

Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-07-19 08:37:43)

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Why should the nation's history be important?

And history is highly interpretive.

"history repeats itself"

ZombieVampire! wrote:

If you believe that (as I do).  But like I said: it's all highly interpretive.  You don't know what is repeating at a given time.

I suppose so. But for example, I wouldn't want to vote for a guy spouting the same rhetoric as some of our not so good presidents.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.

That would be unconstitutional. Just for shits and grins, what would the test consist of?

Actually, it wouldn't (see my previous post).

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

I think you should be tested first before you can register to vote.

That would be unconstitutional. Just for shits and grins, what would the test consist of?

Actually, it would not be unconstitutional.  The Constitution states, in various areas, that the minimum age must be 18 (Ammendment 26), and that  the right to vote can not be decided by gender (Ammendment 19), or by means of 'race, color, or previous servitude' (Ammendment 15).

The manner of elections held is to be determined by each state (Consitution, Section 4, Clause 1.) so long as it does not violate any of the above mentioned ammendments.

Those are the only areas of the Consitution and the Ammendments that deal with voters and elections.  So... where would a test be unconsitutional? 

As an afternote, there is no mention in the Consitution that says anything about a 'voter tax,' that is, a fee to vote, but I believe that was ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  Just hard to find right now.

So, if it is free, but a qualification system is made and universally applied, regardless of gender, race,  or religion, how is it unconstitutional?

***EDIT:  Personally, if you are receiving an entitlement from the government; that is, you have a fiscally dependant on the government (other than disability), then you should not be able to vote.

Last edited by imortal (2008-07-19 19:50:56)

I presume this is equally a jab at the compulsary voting system we have here (which is misunderstood. We don't have compulsary voting, we have compulsary attendance.)

And yes, it's not for anyone to decide who 'deserves' a vote.

Flecco wrote:

Okay, I got bored with the usual stuff I see in D&ST. So I'm posting a topic for debate.



Democracy affords every single member of the voting public with political power. Do they deserve that power?

Cool topic...  All the best forms of government tend to be the hardest to startup and maintain.  For example, a functioning meritocracy would be the ideal form of government, but it's a system that could be easily corrupted.

I think we're kind of stuck keeping things as they are for the simple reasons that democracy is relatively easy to maintain and that fooling the majority of the people the majority of the time is more difficult than it may seem on the surface.  Democracy is obviously prone to corruption like everything else, but lobbyists are the main reason for that.