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.
To some extent, yes. But it used to be concentrated only in certain college towns, mostly Ivy League and other "elite" colleges. It's only in the last 20 years or so where it's spread to smaller and less "elite" state university towns, such as Manhattan, KS which I mentioned in my OP.
Well, I have to admit I do not want college kids to vote. I think a person should have a private sector job for at least four years, or four years of military service with honorable discharge to be allowed to vote. I think anyone living on the taxpayer's dime should not be allowed to vote if that dime came from any form of welfare. I think anyone convicted of a felony, violent misdemeanor or who is a repeat offender of crimes against another person should not be allowed to vote. I think anyone with a learning disability that keeps them from holding a job and functioning in society should not be allowed to vote. I think immigrants who are here illegally should not be allowed to vote. I think anyone under 21 should not be allowed to vote.
In short, I think anyone who is not responsible, law abiding, self sufficient and intelligent should not be allowed to vote. That includes kids who are too young to have seen enough to understand real world problems.
It is time we put the smart, honest and hard working people in charge of the country. That means controlling who we allow to vote. It means not letting people who are the source of many of the nation's current problems vote themselves more benefits paid for by people obeying the law and working to support themselves.
So basically only people who you approve of and are like you should be able to vote. Sounds fair.
Not really. I want the best doctor if I get sick, the best broker if I invest, the best mechanic if my car needs repaired and so on. So, I want the best candidates and the best elected officials. As long as voters are criminal, ignorant or government dependent the politicians will not be held to a higher standard. They can toss a few scraps to the underachievers and stay in office forever.
I want voters smart enough, experienced enough and independent enough to vote for the best person for the nation. Not voters who only think of themselves.
Not really. I want the best doctor if I get sick, the best broker if I invest, the best mechanic if my car needs repaired and so on. So, I want the best candidates and the best elected officials. As long as voters are criminal, ignorant or government dependent the politicians will not be held to a higher standard. They can toss a few scraps to the underachievers and stay in office forever.
I want voters smart enough, experienced enough and independent enough to vote for the best person for the nation. Not voters who only think of themselves.
Those trades you listed are skilled professionals. They are paid to provide a service. Voting is not a service, nor is it paid.
I should also add that your proposal violates so many parts of the Constitution you would have to end the United States as an entity and start all over again. Not to mention that it would stand zero chance of ever happening.
So basically only people who you approve of and are like you should be able to vote. Sounds fair.
I don't know where you got that. But, if voting for the best for the nation is what you mean, then yes. I am sick of voters who support people like Fetterman, Harris and Biden. And don't blah blah me with Trump. I don't want him either, although the nation was better off then than now.
I want politicians who put America first, do not support useless wars that are about hiding dirty money and who will get America back on track. We need secure borders, a massive crackdown on crime, a workfare instead of welfare program, a complete revamping of the public education system and a government that represents America as a whole instead of an America trying to appease small groups of fringe voters with ideas like climate change and equity being more important than energy independence and national security.
Politicians and the new military leaders they have appointed are prioritizing climate over combat readiness. They are claiming our warming trend is a bigger danger than nuclear war. They say we should worry more about gender and race than about the battle readiness of our troops.
I want the kind of leaders that will make decisions that benefit everyone all up and down the income scale. The democrats are every bit the party of the rich that the Republicans are, and maybe more. It is time to hold our politicians to account for their actions. And, having poorly qualified voters guarantees poor elected officials.
The politicians you listed that you don't like are putting America first. You just don't understand how that can be so.
Who is to say that your idea - and your idea only - of what "putting America first" means is the only way of "putting America first?"
People who are in favor of free trade believe they are "putting America first" even if it means importing a lot of goods from China, for example. But you have to understand how free trade benefits the nations who adopt it before you can understand how it can "put America first."
But this is getting way off topic. This was supposed to be a thread on college towns.
Those trades you listed are skilled professionals. They are paid to provide a service. Voting is not a service, nor is it paid.
I should also add that your proposal violates so many parts of the Constitution you would have to end the United States as an entity and start all over again. Not to mention that it would stand zero chance of ever happening.
Yes, your idea is elitist.
Your statement makes no sense. I did not equate voting to anything. I did however compare politicians to other skilled professionals. Politicians are trades people just like mechanics, doctors and other paid skill providers. And, comparing them as such is correct and valid. Every elected position is a job performed by a trades person hired after applying for the job and beating other applicants. And every person responsible for hiring those politicians should want the absolute best person to get that job. But they don't. They want their team to win at all cost.
Voting is a duty, but anymore it is not treated as one. The reason is, no one has to have any qualification to vote. No voter has a requirement to know a thing about what they are voting on. The easier it is to vote and the less a person has understand what they are voting on, the better for the under qualified and corrupt candidate.
I don't think the Constitution was ever intended to provide direct voting by the ignorant, criminals or welfare dependents. It has been amended and molded to give rights to undeserving people. This does not benefit the population, but rather the political opportunist that get in to enrich themselves and abuse the power they were entrusted with.
You're right though, until the country falls, none of what I want will happen. My post was an answer to the question posed. I did not state I wanted the laws changed, because I know that will not happen.
The politicians you listed that you don't like are putting America first. You just don't understand how that can be so.
Who is to say that your idea - and your idea only - of what "putting America first" means is the only way of "putting America first?"
People who are in favor of free trade believe they are "putting America first" even if it means importing a lot of goods from China, for example. But you have to understand how free trade benefits the nations who adopt it before you can understand how it can "put America first."
But this is getting way off topic. This was supposed to be a thread on college towns.
I see you have quickly shifted from trying to debate my statement that voters should be informed, not financially motivated by welfare and have some real world experience, to wanting to argue about whether my opinions of better for America are correct or not.
The thread was in the elections section and I answered a post about whether I wanted college kids to vote. I agree though there is no sense in going any further, as you have never addressed my reasons for wanting only qualified voters. You did call me elitist though and I just attempted to explain why this is not elitism, but rather a matter of practicality. Have a nice day, and we will engage again on another thread.
Your statement makes no sense. I did not equate voting to anything. I did however compare politicians to other skilled professionals. Politicians are trades people just like mechanics, doctors and other paid skill providers. And, comparing them as such is correct and valid. Every elected position is a job performed by a trades person hired after applying for the job and beating other applicants. And every person responsible for hiring those politicians should want the absolute best person to get that job. But they don't. They want their team to win at all cost....
But when you hire a plumber, you yourself do not need to know anything about plumbing to be able to choose a qualified plumber. When you go to a doctor, you don't need to know anything about medicine to be able to choose a qualified doctor. You do not need to have any certain kind of life or work experience, or a college degree, or be of a certain age, or have a certain IQ or higher, and so on, to be able to choose these professionals.
You hire those professionals because you have a need for their services. That is the only "qualification" you need.
Likewise, when people "hire" a politician, the people who have a need for their services are the one who are governed by them: Adult US citizens.
I agree it would be nice if those politicians had some experience in their profession (at least, the higher the office the more experience), but politics isn't necessarily as high-skilled a profession as being a doctor or even a plumber.
If we, who choose doctors and plumbers, do not need to have any particular qualifications ourselves to choose them, why should we with politicians?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 3 days ago)
35,613 posts, read 17,935,039 times
Reputation: 50634
Quote:
Originally Posted by miquel_westano
Not really. I want the best doctor if I get sick, the best broker if I invest, the best mechanic if my car needs repaired and so on. So, I want the best candidates and the best elected officials. As long as voters are criminal, ignorant or government dependent the politicians will not be held to a higher standard. They can toss a few scraps to the underachievers and stay in office forever.
I want voters smart enough, experienced enough and independent enough to vote for the best person for the nation. Not voters who only think of themselves.
This doesn't equate at all. The "best" doctors, and the "best" mechanics, can be rated, and agreed on by the masses.
The "best" political leaders are a matter of opinion.
But you raise an interesting point. The lowest class Republican voters vote against their own self-interests, which is something the lowest class Democrat voters don't do. Kind of bizarre, really.
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.
