Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, they don't vote but they heavily influence the process.
They have way too much influence and liberals and republicans like it that way... and that is a big problem for Americans... instead of doing what's right, they do what gives them more money or votes...
You don't understand. Throwing out the racist card is an attempt to kill the disussion.
Fortunately, that strategy started getting stale in the '90s.
IDK, Keith Olbermann and others flung it full-force against Tom Tancredo earlier this year.
(I must mention that I normally like Olbermann; and the comment on civic literacy tests is about the only thing that's ever come out of Tancredo's mouth that I've remotely agreed with.)
I think it's more important that that the candidates be more restricted rather than voters. Except when it comes to voting for funding medical research the public should have to show some knowledge about the research. Too many voters have no clue what they are voting for and they choose either "yes" or "no" only because the TV preacher and/or their church preacher told them which to choose without explaining and educating them on what their vote will do to or for society.
Last edited by Lolipopbubbles; 10-16-2010 at 07:46 PM..
i'm a liberal and i would fully support a civics/current events test for voting.
Almost all the people i know who couldn't pass a basic test with questions like "how many u.s. Senators are there from each state?", "what is opec?", "who was president when saigon fell?" etc. Are republican voters.
yeah right. I went to a school were 80 percent were democrats and minorities and i promise they would get those wrong too.
I have long thought that Universal Suffrage was the stupidest thing possible for a democracy.
Voting should be restricted to educated property owners. And If I had my way, only people over thirty, with college degrees, would vote.
So yeah. It's time we started restricting, not extending, suffrage.
Not gonna happen, though...
Seriously if that were allowed I think it would wreak havoc on our system of property as people would want to start creating weird interests in property, or reviving old or seldom used interests so they could insure they and their families would not be deprived of the vote.
For example, I could see people trying to offer 999 year leases on property instead of selling it so they could be able to insure they and their descendants had a property basis for the right to vote for a thousand years. Or better yet what happens if people start pushing for the restoration of the fee tail so that they and their descendants can have an indefinite, inalienable interest in property for the purpose of voting? On top of that can you imagine the vast amount of title research that would be required for figuring out the validity of voter rolls?
Last edited by Randomstudent; 10-16-2010 at 09:02 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
