Do you think there should be voting restrictions?

[Moose Milligan]

I think it's rather simple. If the majority of voters don't care about a candidate's stand on issues and want to vote for someone because they are black, good looking, a good public speaker or whatever criteria those people use, then that is the will of the people. And if that is the will of the majority of Americans, then people who do care about a candidate's stance on the issues will have to take a back seat, because they will have been outvoted. That is democracy.

To set voter restrictions is really just an attempt to limit the amount of votes that you feel will oppose yours. And that ain't happening. This is America.

Not really, no. I don't want the same people who are equally as ignorant voting for my candidate, either.

[Moose Milligan]

Well, if we were on the edge of straying into politics before, this just pushed us way over the line.

I don't know who would write the criteria for, or administer, such a test, and in how many different foreign languages to boot. My wife has a doctorate, and her only knowledge of the "policies" of a candidate is the letter that follows their name at the ballot box. I keep myself informed, and she cancels my vote out every election. Now, I'm not going to say we should repeal the 19th Amendment. Nor am I saying she should have to pass any "policy" test either. I don't think we need any additional restrictions on who is eligible to vote, provided you're able to prove you are who you say you are.

Fine, I'd be willing to come off the stance of having to take a test to see if you actually know what your candidate believes. I realize it's a wingnut stance to take and has no hope of ever being implemented.

But I absolutely 100% feel that you should have to take a test to see if you know about this country's history and how the government works in order to vote. If people have to take such a test to gain citizenship, people should have to take a similar test to vote.

[Can_of_corn]

Well, if we were on the edge of straying into politics before, this just pushed us way over the line.

I don't know who would write the criteria for, or administer, such a test, and in how many different foreign languages to boot. My wife has a doctorate, and her only knowledge of the "policies" of a candidate is the letter that follows their name at the ballot box. I keep myself informed, and she cancels my vote out every election. Now, I'm not going to say we should repeal the 19th Amendment. Nor am I saying she should have to pass any "policy" test either. I don't think we need any additional restrictions on who is eligible to vote, provided you're able to prove you are who you say you are.

Your discussion of your wife and the 19th amendment reminds me of something my high school American government teacher said to us. I am paraphrasing since this was decades ago.

I love the 19th amendment, now I have two votes and next year when my daughter hits 18 I will have three.

[TonySoprano]

But I absolutely 100% feel that you should have to take a test to see if you know about this country's history and how the government works in order to vote.

I submit that most people that did pass their civics test, including those that studied for their citizenship test, do not retain most of the information on the separation of powers years later. Case in point, there seems to be some "confusion" of late by a very prominent former law professor as to what Marburg v. Madison decided and the role of the SCOTUS.

"Government works" = an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp, down escalator, Senate budget

Your discussion of your wife and the 19th amendment reminds me of something my high school American government teacher said to us. I am paraphrasing since this was decades ago.

When my son turns 18, I will once again have the majority in the Soprano household.

[Skeletor]

Not really, no. I don't want the same people who are equally as ignorant voting for my candidate, either.

Maybe not you personally, but I think most people that share your views feel that way. They think they're smart people, they watch the news and the debates, and they read the paper. They're intelligent, well-informed and they're voting X. Therefore, it only stands to reason that the misinformed, uninformed, and the dumb will vote Y.

[BRobinsonfan]

I submit that most people that did pass their civics test, including those that studied for their citizenship test, do not retain most of the information on the separation of powers years later. Case in point, there seems to be some "confusion" of late by a very prominent former law professor as to what Marburg v. Madison decided and the role of the SCOTUS.

"Government works" = an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp, down escalator, Senate budget


When my son turns 18, I will once again have the majority in the Soprano household.

It's Marbury vs. Madison not Marburg. Also - please mind the "no politics" rule.

[tennOsfan]

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.

This country was founded with idea that slavery was legal. Citizens didn't get to vote for their U.S. Senators, and something crazy called the Electoral College elected the President. Presidential nominees were selected at a convention where the everyday Joe was not to be found.

[Pedro Cerrano]

This country was founded with idea that slavery was legal. Citizens didn't get to vote for their U.S. Senators, and something crazy called the Electoral College elected the President. Presidential nominees were selected at a convention where the everyday Joe was not to be found.

The most basic principle was that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that all men are created equal. That principle stands as we evolve as a country.

[tennOsfan]

When I went to vote for the Presidential primary last month, I had a little redneck feller in front of me. When the election worker asked if he wanted to vote Democrat or Republican, he said, "neither one!" He didn't know what he was there for. They had to show him a paper ballot for him to figure out who was running, and he expressed surprise that no one was running against Obama.

His vote should not be equal to mine. I don't know how he even found the polling place.

[waroriole]

The most basic principle was that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that all men are created equal. That principle stands as we evolve as a country.

It's hard to take that "principle" seriously when a large portion of the country were slaves, and when those people only counted as 3/5 of a person. I'd say it means a lot more now than it did then.

[square634]

It's hard to take that "principle" seriously when a large portion of the country were slaves, and when those people only counted as 3/5 of a person. I'd say it means a lot more now than it did then.

You're right, we're getting closer to that goal, but there is still work to be done.

[BaltimoreTerp]

When I went to vote for the Presidential primary last month, I had a little redneck feller in front of me. When the election worker asked if he wanted to vote Democrat or Republican, he said, "neither one!" He didn't know what he was there for. They had to show him a paper ballot for him to figure out who was running, and he expressed surprise that no one was running against Obama.

His vote should not be equal to mine. I don't know how he even found the polling place.

And he might say that the person who goes in as a member of a party, and who wouldn't express surprise that an incumbent wouldn't have to fight for renomination, is part of the problem with this country, and that you are correct in your vote shouldn't be worth the same as his

[mweb]

You're right, we're getting closer to that goal, but there is still work to be done.

Yep, and having everyone's vote be equally important would be another step to that principle.

[lordbrook]

I am a liberal in one of the most conservative States in the nation and I get really upset when I talk politics with my neighbors and they are so uninformed they embarrass themselves. Then I see how uninformed some of "my" voters are from other States and I figure you could make voting harder and you would probably eliminate the same percentage of voters from both parties so it would make no difference in the end.

[SilentJames]

It never ceases to amuse me that the people that rail against any bureaucratic system or any government intrusion into anyone's personal life now want the government creating a massive bureaucracy to directly impact someone's rights.

And PLEASE living here is not a privilege. There are a lot of people who would probably love to move somewhere else but I don't know if you have ever tried to price expatriation but let me tell you, its a little pricey. One can not simply just say: "I'm moving to Canada" without thousands of dollars of disposable income.

Here you go.

Every state in the union requires, for graduation from high school, An American History/ Civics/ Government course. If you graduate from high school in this country (or receive a GED) you have to have passed, or at least attained an equivalency, in this course. Therefore 75% of the US population have passed this course already. Big surprise the 25% of the country that does not graduate from high school TENDS NOT TO VOTE due to demographic trends.

If the reasons people vote "disturb" you then guess what - THAT IS WHAT FREEDOM MEANS. People are free to vote however they want, for whatever reasons they want. You may not like that, and if it is you have the right to get more involved in the process, join groups to help better educate the electorate or you can take solace in the fact that if nothing else your vote will cancel out someone else's that is voting for a reason that does not meet your high standards.

Since women have gotten the vote studies have shown that the "more attractive" candidate has always won. This has been doubly true since the advent of TV.
Young people vote overwhelming Democratic but they DON'T VOTE. People don't start voting until after 30. The groups that vote the most are the 60+ demographic which is why no entitlements will be touched - at all - for the next decade until the baby boomers start dying out.

This is what liberty is, I can vote for whomever I choose for whatever reason I choose. In Federalist 10, Madison talks about the dangers of faction. He is speaking about political parties and groups but it applies here. He talks about how factions lead to instability in a democracy BUT since you can't regulate people's intelligence, emotions or desires (Because that is tyranny) the only way to combat it is to EMBRACE IT and allow the different conflicting groups cancel each other out acting like a sort of democratic filter.

Yes were there people that voted for Obama for no other reason than he was black - sure. But there was also a population that didn't vote for him for the same reason. Are there people that want to vote for Santorum because he has a spiritual direct line to Jesus? ABSOLUTELY - but there is an equal population that will not vote for him for that specific reason.

People that want this are creating a problem that doesn't exist. We have allowed virtually anyone to vote in this country for the last 45 years (longer in non-Jim Crow states) and the Union still stands. It is a problem that doesn't exist in any real capacity.