Do you think there should be voting restrictions?

[Sports Guy]

Ah well done. Yes democrats are stupid. Good for you.

You deal with the government. Trust me not as much as I do. You seem to have this belief that people who are ignorant are the ones voting people in but the reality is this: the people you describe aren't the ones voting anyway. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Also, your little test. I can fill a test with all sorts of basic information and make it so only the people I want to pass are the ones that do. I mean you're a republican, and you want the federal government dictating who can or can't vote? Nevermind the fact that the federal government has no control over voting laws and they are all run by the states. And your plan would be a clear violation of the voting rights act and most likely the 26th amendment.

But hey what's constitution have to do with anything so long as the people I deem unworthy of the vote no longer have it.

Simply disgusting
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

No, I want the people's own intelligence to dictate it.

James, aren't you a teacher btw?

[mweb]

No, I want the people's own intelligence to dictate it.

Knowing who the vice president is isn't particularly indicative of ones intelligence.

[Sports Guy]

Knowing who the vice president is isn't particularly indicative of ones intelligence.

I agree...but if you can't even answer that....

[mweb]

I agree...but if you can't even answer that....

Well as has been said, I don't think this is a big enough problem to throw a bunch of money at it in form of this test that people will be aware of, then be able to briefly study for and pass it. Sure it will weed out a very small number of people. So it's not worth it imo even if I thought it was a good concept.

[Sports Guy]

Well as has been said, I don't think this is a big enough problem to throw a bunch of money at it in form of this test that people will be aware of, then be able to briefly study for and pass it. Sure it will weed out a very small number of people. So it's not worth it imo even if I thought it was a good concept.

End of the day, I agree(to be honest, this was more of an out loud thought more than anything...the cost of it would be high).

But I would be a whole hell of a lot more in favor of it if the popular vote was how the presidency was determined. In the current setting, its not likely to change anything.

[TGO]

Considering how difficult it is to unseat an incumbent I don't think there are many people who actually vote who don't know who their representatives are. They may not necessarily know the VP because he is on a ticket with someone else, same as the Lt. Gov. in states like MD. But people who vote usually know the President, their Congressional representatives and at least one or two of their state representatives. Otherwise how would they know to keep voting for them?

[MurphDogg]

I am a republican who lives in Maryland.

My vote is totally meaningless.

That's a problem.

For all of this talk in this thread about how voting is a right and not a priviledge, it should also be a right that my vote has meaning...and it doesn't.

Besides, if we have people take a test, the majority of the population won't be democratic anymore.

All of our individual votes are meaningless, that is kind of the point.

Do you think my vote as a Democrat in Baltimore is somehow more meaningful?

May want to check your numbers re: education and political parties, though a lack of interest in facts is sort of a Republican trait (I smiled, you can't get mad).

I like the idea that Republicans want the government to determine who has the right to vote .

[TGO]

Notice the smiley face? It was called a joke. No need to be so sensitive.

Mrs. Jim Beam

[Sports Guy]

Considering how difficult it is to unseat an incumbent I don't think there are many people who actually vote who don't know who their representatives are. They may not necessarily know the VP because he is on a ticket with someone else, same as the Lt. Gov. in states like MD. But people who vote usually know the President, their Congressional representatives and at least one or two of their state representatives. Otherwise how would they know to keep voting for them?

Because they vote for whoever has the "D" or the "R" next to their name.

[mweb]

All of our individual votes are meaningless, that is kind of the point.

Do you think my vote as a Democrat in Baltimore is somehow more meaningful?

I think the point is that every vote should be equally meaningful in a national election. Why have a system that reduces the important voters to people living in well under half of the states?

[TGO]

Because they vote for whoever has the "D" or the "R" next to their name.

And in a primary?

[SilentJames]

No, I want the people's own intelligence to dictate it.

James, aren't you a teacher btw?

Who will be making and administer the tests?

Don't you get it? Individual states would be making different tests. And throughout HISTORY the testing you describe has been used to deny the right to vote to SWATHS of the population. I mean for someone who is claiming such superior intelligence you sure don't have a grasp on American history.

Yes I am a teacher, in fact I am a government and history teacher. And I am telling you that your idea is the first step to fascism. I mean honestly, you don't think that if MD could make a statewide voting test that they would make it so only the people they want voting pass? The same would be done in virtually every state, let alone states that are already putting up roadblocks to voting.

Poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, white primaries all of these have been used to disenfranchise large groups of people.

I know that conservative talking heads have brought this up in the past but it is patently un-American and a despicable idea.

[Sports Guy]

And in a primary?

Good question. Don't know how to answer that. Perhaps they vote for someone they have just heard of? Someone recommended to them by a friend? Things like that.

[MurphDogg]

I think the point is that every vote should be equally meaningful in a national election. Why have a system that reduces the important voters to people living in well under half of the states?

What do you do then if the election ends in close to a popular vote tie? National recount?

[SilentJames]

End of the day, I agree(to be honest, this was more of an out loud thought more than anything...the cost of it would be high).

But I would be a whole hell of a lot more in favor of it if the popular vote was how the presidency was determined. In the current setting, its not likely to change anything.

You realize that means Al Gore would have won, and he would have won winning only the major population centers of the northeast, west coast and great lakes. He would have won with two thirds of the 50 states voting against him.

There is a reason for the electoral college.