wae said:Look, if we can't consider voting to be important enough that you can set aside a little bit of time on a specific day once every couple years...
Election day is not a national holiday.
wae said:Look, if we can't consider voting to be important enough that you can set aside a little bit of time on a specific day once every couple years...
Election day is not a national holiday.
Everyone has a reason why their voice and others like them aught to carry more weight than someone else's.
That means there is someone out there who believes your voice should matter less than theirs.
VolvoHeretic said:So, Tuna55, if we can behave, are you going to let your kids read this thread?
Of course. Tunakid1 is a forum member.
Beer Baron said:wae said:Look, if we can't consider voting to be important enough that you can set aside a little bit of time on a specific day once every couple years...
Election day is not a national holiday.
Nor does it need to be, but I'm willing to entertain the idea.
In reply to tuna55 :
Am I correct in saying he is also a bit of a sim racer?
Voting is a fundamental right. Arguably it is THE fundamental right in a democracy.
If you have to undergo a test or jump through hoops to earn the ability to do something, that is a privilege not a right.
Listen to an immigrant who has gone to the trouble and expense to get their citizenship talk about how government works.
Then listen to just about any public school educated citizen. There is an entire generation that has no clue how government works and worse yet, a lot of them don't care as long as they get their handout. A civics test to vote would disenfranchise 50% of the population.
I have had to teach my own children how the US government works because the government-funded schools suck that bad. Here's a news flash. Most politicians don't want you to know how government works. They want an ignorant populous who will work, spend money, pay taxes, and die. They want to be able to buy your votes with your money and for you to be happy about it. That requires an ignorant population.
Remember this guy? Yeah, he doesn't get much air time on Tiktok or Twitter. Did you ever wonder why that is? It used to be the government purchased air time to play these during the cartoons after school and on Saturday mornings. Now kids get targeted ads for video games, electronics, and crappy plastic toys while they scroll through their phones.
In reply to Beer Baron :
Showing up is not jumping through hoops. Just because something is a right doesn't mean that it has to be easy or provided to you. I have a fundamental right to petition the government but that doesn't mean they have to come to my house on my schedule. I have a right to freedom of the press, but that doesn't mean that the government has to provide me with my own newspaper or radio station. I have a right to bear arms, but I still have to go buy them myself. I have a right not to allow the government to house soldiers in my house, but I.. well, I guess that one isn't quite as relevant.
Whenever I wind up in a third amendment argument, though, I realize that I'm at the point where we agree to disagree and leave it as an example of the philosophical differences that our system is supposed to navigate through the use of public discourse and representational democracy.
Beer Baron said:In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Because the people who have required and created such tests in the past have done so for partisan, racist, and/or classist reasons in the past. They have always been crafted to disenfranchise, with some hypothetical problem held up as a smokescreen.
Maybe such a test wouldn't be inherently racist, but would tend to target people with particular geography and socio-demographic status.
Let's take a hypothetical test that is legitimately crafted to be basic civics and is administered in a completely color-blind way. Could it actually be administered in such a way that every citizen legitimately has equal opportunity to take it?
All of us on this board have a certain amount of free time. On average, people here have more money and free time than average. Almost certainly everyone here has access to their own transportation. We all have access to computers and the internet.
Now, take a random person living in a socially disadvantaged area. They work two 28-hour jobs (because Walmart and McDonalds want to keep them as part-time status) to pay rent and buy food. They take public transportation between those jobs. They have at least one child to care for. Where and how do all of the people whose situation that describes take such a test?
Many will find a way to take this test. Many won't.
Now, because fewer people in that demographic in those areas are voting, politicians pay less attention to them. Their schools, neighborhoods, and libraries get less money. Less chances for their children to grow up in any kind of a different situation.
Should such people be exempt from jury duty then? Or the draft?
As for the test...it already exists. I linked to it. If people who are willing to upend their entire life to immigrate to this country to live have to take it, there's zero excuse anyone who's already living here can give not to. "Can't be bothered", or "too busy" is not an excuse.
My neighbor's wife doesn't vote. She said it's because she doesn't feel like she knows enough to vote, and doesn't have the inclination to. While I disagree with this take and wish that she take the time to learn and become involved, I at least respect her position more than someone who doesn't know anything and blindly casts ballots.
As far as politicians paying less attention to those areas, they already do. As described above, in general, politicians tend to write-off areas that are a "gimme" for them, or they have zero chance at winning.
In reply to wae :
I love reading your posts.
aircooled said:In reply to tuna55 :
Am I correct in saying he is also a bit of a sim racer?
Yes, though he struggles with either the computer or the setup so, to me, it's undriveable. I hope he doesn't wreak havoc.
In reply to Toyman! :
"A civics test to vote would disenfranchise 50% of the population"
Considering that "great" turnout during an election year is about 67%, it sounds like 1/3 of the population is already disenfranchised.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Disenfranchised is a lot different than choosing to not show up.
I strongly doubt most of that 33% is disenfranchised.
KyAllroad said:I read a sci-fi book about 25 years ago and the humans living on a new planet got to choose their own form of government and they came up with basically jury duty.
Every citizen above the age of majority (barring mental disability or legal troubles) was tested and those who scored highly enough were put into the service pool. When it came time to have new leadership the central computer would spit out the names of the people who would serve and what their job would be for the next 2-4-6 years.
"Hey the new names dropped today, what did you get?"
"Aww man, I got Senator. Guess I have to do it so I can get back to my real career."
Just think about how nice it would be if the people serving did so because they wanted to be remembered for being good at their job and not what would get them reelected. No campaigning. No fund raising.
Term limits. Let's start there.
volvoclearinghouse said:Should such people be exempt from jury duty then? Or the draft?
Getting out of jury duty is quite common. If you are in a position where you could not miss an extended amount of work either because the company couldn't manage or you couldn't, you will be dismissed. This happened to me as a teacher.
The draft is completely different.
I default to the libertarian (small 'L') position: Voting is an inalienable right of all citizens. The burden of proof lies on those who wish to limit a right or make it conditional to demonstrate that such steps are necessary. The burden of proof is *not* on a citizen to demonstrate that they deserve a right.
The problem presented is that many people running for office are despicable egotists (regardless of party). If the problem is the quality of people running for office, the solution should address... the people running for office. The solution is *not* to disenfranchise citizens.
wae said:In reply to Beer Baron :
I have a right to bear arms, but I still have to go buy them myself.
...but you do not have to pass a test.
Why would you hold casting a vote to a higher standard?
One of my pet peeves is politicians that campaign for 2 years while still getting paid for whatever job they hold. If you want to run for office, you should be required to relinquish your current position. You gotta believe in yourself as much as you want me to believe in you.
Public service was never supposed to be a career. It was supposed to be like jury duty, something you did for the greater good, then went back to your life.
tuna55 said:Now is a good as a time and place as any to unveil my long held belief about how elections should run in this country.
Lottery based on region involved gets you an invitation to be a candidate. I think a minimum screening test happens next [...]After one term they go back to work, and are not eligible again to be picked for candidacy for 15 years.
Wait! This is called Sortition, it was the core of Athenian democracy and lots of people would like to bring it back.
I've always thought they should give everyone a test on civics and general knowledge as they stand in line to vote, something that should be easily completed in less than five minutes. The percent you get right is the percentage your vote is worth. Get an 80% on your test, your vote counts for 80% of a full vote. The problem as stated above is the tests would end up getting written by the same people who draw up voting districts, so a bunch of goddamn dirty cheaters and crooks.
In reply to Geoffrey :
That's debatable.
As noted several times, radio listeners thought Nixon out-performed Kennedy in the debate.
Beer Baron said:wae said:In reply to Beer Baron :
I have a right to bear arms, but I still have to go buy them myself.
...but you do not have to pass a test.
Why would you hold casting a vote to a higher standard?
In many states you have to pass a background check and/or take some kind of class or training to bear arms.
You'll need to log in to post.
