+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 249
03-30-2012 12:32 PM #1
Do you think there should be voting restrictions?
This isn't meant to be political, so hopefully this can stay as a thread.
It used to be that only land owners could vote...used to be that woman couldn't vote.
While I am not saying that either of those should still be the case(although I would be in favor of the land owners only voting), I do have a belief that there should be some kind of test or something like that where you are asked basic questions and if you can't pass it, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Now, when I say basic questions, I am not saying you should know the policies or things like that of the candidates.
I am talking basic stuff...for example, if you can't tell me who the Vice President is right now, I don't think should be allowed to vote. That is what I mean by basic questions.
What do you guys think? Should there be restrictions or is it as simple as, its your right as an american citizen to vote and that is enough?
Another potential restriction...Should you have to be older?
(just a few examples, i am sure some of you have others)
Last edited by Sports Guy; 03-30-2012 at 12:35 PM.
03-30-2012 12:35 PM #2
I'd prefer restrictions on procreation....
03-30-2012 12:36 PM #3
03-30-2012 12:43 PM #4
People who don't know who vice president is probably aren't voting anyway.
I think like, 60% of the population votes, or something like that.
03-30-2012 12:50 PM #5Plus Member Since June 2010 All-Star
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Washington DC
Isn't the larger issue with voting restrictions that if enacted they can be abused? Therefore we should avoid having them?
On a limited basis could I be for some kind of restriction, depending on what it was sure, but at the point where those who can vote hold the power to create more restrictions, you really get yourself into trouble quickly.
I like the notion of citizenship tests, but I guess I'd want those more unilaterally applied to those we elect rather than those who vote. In a Democracy isn't it equally fair that someone has to learn to appeal to those who learn who the VP is as well as those who do not?
03-30-2012 12:51 PM #6
No, but if you're going to have restrictions why not make people know the policies of the person they're voting for?
03-30-2012 12:53 PM #7
I think the less restriction the better... the voting age is fine as it is, if you can fight in a war you should certainly be able to vote. I don't see how "land ownership" means much of anything. Some quick Googling says that somewhere around 1/3 of Americans own land... I wouldn't consider our system very democratic if it excluded 2/3 of the population. I think a basic citizenship-style test would make sense, and I like someone else's suggestion of making sure the people we're voting for can also pass a similar test.
03-30-2012 01:08 PM #8
I think the current restrictions are adequate except that I think a photo ID (which would be free) should be required. I understand the other side of the issue but fraud is simply too easy if photo identification is not required.
03-30-2012 01:14 PM #9
03-30-2012 01:18 PM #10
03-30-2012 01:48 PM #11
If you've written a check or used your credit card at a store, bought an alcoholic beverage at a bar or store, boarded a commercial airplane, ridden on AMTRAK, taken the SAT or ACT exam, registered for college classes or activities, picked up certain prescription medicines, applied for a library card, taken your garbage to a county public dump site, picked up tickets for a concert or a sporting event at will call, picked up held mail or a package at the post office, applied for a U.S. passport, bought industrial strength drain cleaner at a hardware store, bought a firearm, and on and on....then you have been asked for a photo ID.
However, to ask for an ID to vote because voter fraud does occur (see: Chicago) is deemed to be voter suppression. Personally, I believe the assumption that a person can not easily obtain a photo ID to vote, but can do so for the numerous other requirements in daily life is an insult to those supposedly threatened by a photo ID requirement, and to common sense.
03-30-2012 02:21 PM #12
03-30-2012 02:27 PM #13
Rep to anyone who can remember the Hangout poster who had started a thread about running for county council I believe in Harford County. He had a thread going to about all the silly ideas he had as well.
03-30-2012 02:30 PM #14
There are restrictions. You have to be 18 and you have to not be in prison. Anything more than that takes away from the very principles this country was founded on.
I'm with NMS, the people that do not know the basics like who the Veep is probably aren't bothering to go to the polls anyway.
Oh, and the "only land owners can vote" idea is beyond absurd, but that's another debate for another day.
Last edited by Pedro Cerrano; 03-30-2012 at 02:33 PM.
03-30-2012 02:46 PM #15
If they restricted the voting age to only land owners, it would be an absolute disgrace. That would pretty much cut out the entire college population, and I can only imagine the protests that would come from that. There should be a four question test to vote.
1. Are you an American citizen?
2. Are you 18?
3. Are you registered to vote?
4. Do you have a photo ID?
If you can answer yes to these four questions at a polling center, you should be allowed to vote.