yeah. we should expect that kinda stuff w/ a democratic house and senate...

3/20/2007 3:16:10 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro: well, obviously those people don't care enough about a fucking representative democracy then, SINCE THEY CAN'T CARE ENOUGH TO BE INFORMED... idiot"

1. Don't call me an idiot. I get it. They're uninformed and don't deserve to vote, blah, blah, blah...
2. Actually they do deserve the right to vote. They're citizens after all.
3. How can you possibly think restricting voting rights is a good idea? Did you not learn about how that worked out for everybody? Are you so scared of mob rule? Cause you're no James Madison, kid...you are the mob.

3/20/2007 3:24:43 PM

Quote :

"Actually they do deserve the right to vote. They're citizens after all."

actually, they do have the right to vote. All they have to do is be informed enough to vote.

but, if you would read my statement from earlier in the thread, I stated that such a system is doomed to failure, because it would almost instantly be manipulated by the gov't.

3/20/2007 3:28:20 PM

Quote :

"but, if you would read my statement from earlier in the thread, I stated that such a system is doomed to failure, because it would almost instantly be manipulated by the gov't."

Don't blame the government or the politicians for that bit. There's no way to fairly test somebody to vote.

Seriously, you come up with a test for the last election. And I'll tell you how it blows.

3/20/2007 3:30:42 PM

so... are you trying to agree with me, or are you trying to agree with me?

3/20/2007 3:32:36 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro: yes. people who don't have time to make a good decision should go out and pollute our government with the morons we have now. great idea. unfortunately, there's hardly any other fair way to do it that wouldn't be exploited by the politicians."

Maybe I'd agree with this. I don't think there's any fair way to do it, which is why I think it's a terrible idea and feel compelled to reiterate the point that everybody deserves the right to vote. I'd certainly never agree with any of this:

Quote :

"aaronburro: actually, it'd be a damned good idea. except the politicians would fuck it up"

3/20/2007 3:37:32 PM

so, implementation aside, you really think it's a good idea to let people vote who don't know what the fuck they are voting for? if so, why shouldn't we let infants vote? it's the same damned thing!

3/20/2007 3:38:53 PM

^Implementation amen. It's like Socialism or Communism. It only works if it's run by a machine... not just any machine, but the perfect machine, with people completely out of the loop.

3/20/2007 3:43:35 PM

Quote :

"so, implementation aside, you really think it's a good idea to let people vote who don't know what the fuck they are voting for? if so, why shouldn't we let infants vote? it's the same damned thing!"

Infants don't have the ability to know what they're voting for. That's why it's not the same damned thing.

Adults do have the ability to know what they're voting for, and since we can't fairly tell which ones used that ability and which ones didn't, it is a horrible, horrible idea to try and restrict the rights of voters based on some test-perceived ignorance.

But that point is unimportant since, even if God sent down some divine machine that would determine a person's qualifications to vote, I would still say that everybody should get to vote.

3/20/2007 4:01:30 PM

Quote :

"Infants don't have the ability to know what they're voting for"

neither do a lot of 18 year olds

3/20/2007 4:03:20 PM

^Actually 18-year-olds do; many of them choose not to use that ability though.

Big difference.

I can't say your observation was keen, TreeTwista10, well, because it wasn't...but, as usual, you get points for being precious.

3/20/2007 4:07:36 PM

Maybe I should rephrase what I meant since you must've misunderstood it:

People age and develop differently...learn differently...etc...does everyone have the exact same skills and abilities and intelligence the day of their 18th birthday? Of course not. So isn't age just a different form of "test-perceived ignorance"?

I think this is another case of your idealism and kindness clouding rationale

And I don't have a problem with the voting age being 18...but I think voting just to vote is stupid...do you practice a religion just because you have the right?

3/20/2007 4:12:45 PM

it seems like the most fair and objective way of drawing a line.

i think most people who vote value it in some way. they do go to the trouble to show up.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 4:14:34 PM

^^We picked 18 because you become a legal adult at 18.

Not because 18 is some magical age that makes you fit to vote.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 4:18 PM. Reason : sss]

3/20/2007 4:15:38 PM

why did we pick 18 as the age you become a legal adult? does that mean all 18 year olds are capable of understanding all the issues they are voting on? of course not

so i dont think some 18 year old who dropped out of school in 9th grade should vote just because he is of legal age

3/20/2007 4:21:04 PM

Quote :

"why did we pick 18 as the age you become a legal adult?"

Since that question has nothing to do with voting, I'll ignore it.

Quote :

"does that mean all 18 year olds are capable of understanding all the issues they are voting on? of course not so i dont think some 18 year old who dropped out of school in 9th grade should vote just because he is of legal age"

Again, I already told you that 18 was not picked because it was some magical age where everyone was fit to vote. It was picked because that's when we fokls were considered adults--the voting age used to be higher, but it became clear that 18-year-olds were contributing to the country in war as adults and therefore deserved the adult right to vote.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 4:32 PM. Reason : sss]

3/20/2007 4:29:29 PM

Quote :

"It was picked because that's when we fokls were considered adults"

and then when i asked you why (which BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IS PERTINENT TO THE TOPIC) you chose to ignore the question since you assumed it had nothing to do with voting

and I dont need a history lesson...and I'm not saying the age should be different

I'm simply saying that some people who are of age are not competent to vote, a fact which your idealism seems to blind you from

3/20/2007 4:31:17 PM

Quote :

"and then when i asked you why (which BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IS PERTINENT TO THE TOPIC) you chose to ignore the question since you assumed it had nothing to do with voting"

You're not going to get me into a debate about whether or not 18 is an appropriate age to define adulthood. That is a whole nother argument that has nothing to do with whether or not we should restrict voting rights.

Quote :

"I'm simply saying that some people who are of age are not competent to vote, a fact which your idealism seems to blind you from"

Like I said, 18 is not some magical age where everybody is fit to vote. I've already admitted there are a few people who are genuinely not competent to vote, and I've said I think they should have the right to vote.

However, aside from extremely complex issues that most folks don't get, I think most 18-year-olds "are capable of understanding all the issues they are voting on." But like many others, they may not use that capability.

3/20/2007 4:45:05 PM

Quote :

"dults do have the ability to know what they're voting for, and since we can't fairly tell which ones used that ability and which ones didn't, it is a horrible, horrible idea to try and restrict the rights of voters based on some test-perceived ignorance."

so, what part of "implementation aside" didn't you understand? I was asking you, independent of whether or not we could actually achieve a perfect test to determine a voter's competence, do you think it's a good idea to let people vote when they don't know what they are voting for? AKA, leave whether or not a fair test could be created out of it.

Quote :

"Infants don't have the ability to know what they're voting for."

so, how is that any different than the people I said don't know what they're voting for? the end result is the same: a bullshit vote.

3/20/2007 8:40:52 PM

^

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: But that point is unimportant since, even if God sent down some divine machine that would determine a person's qualifications to vote, I would still say that everybody should get to vote."

Basically, I've got two arguments against a test to vote...

1. It can't be fairly implemented.
2. Even if we came up with a perfectly fair test, everybody should be allowed to vote.

I don't have to defend the second argument cause 1) we can't come up with a perfectly fair test and 2) my first argument works just fine.

But if forced to defend my second argument, I'd say, "IT'S A DEMOCRACY/REPUBLIC, FUCKFACE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU CAN GIIIIIIIIIT OUT!"

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 10:32 PM. Reason : sss]

3/20/2007 10:32:18 PM

so in other words, we should let an infant vote. everyone deserves to vote. it doesn't matter that their uninformed vote fucks over many people who actually know what they are voting for. just so long as that fool gets to push the button that says "cast vote."

3/20/2007 10:35:54 PM

^Wanna go again?

1. How would you propose we determine who should vote and who shouldn't? I don't think there's a fair way to do it.
2. IT'S A DEMOCRACY/REPUBLIC, FUCKFACE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU CAN GIIIIIIIIIT OUT!

3/21/2007 3:00:39 AM

Again I would say this. You can't really come up with a means-testing for voting. It just couldn't survive today's PC world.

But you could limit the damage that would be caused by uninformed voters by only allowing them to vote for their congressman, and maybe the president (after fixing the primary system). The senate should go back to the original way in the Constitution, elected by state legislatures.

Just a thought.

3/21/2007 9:05:27 AM

^I caught that the first time. I wouldn't be interested in that idea because I'm not afraid of mob rule.

After all, we are the mob, EarthDogg. Or do you think you're special?

3/21/2007 9:19:10 AM

^
I am special!

If by mob rule, you mean pure democracy, I would remind you that the founders never intended to create a pure democracy but a republic. They saw the inherent dangers of mob rule running roughshod over individual liberty.

3/21/2007 9:43:45 AM

^Yeah, that's why I mentioned mob rule.

That was Madison and Co.'s concern when they decided to allow the public to elect members to only the House.

I'm saying that mob rule isn't a concern of mine so I don't see why we should go back to limiting public elections.

3/21/2007 12:31:13 PM

Quote :

"In Bart's Comet, the city of Springfield is under threat of destruction from a comet and the only bridge out of town has been destroyed. Kent Brockman on the Channel 6 news shows footage of congress trying to help out and the following exchange takes place: House Speaker: Then it is unanimous. We are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of.... Congressman: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill. Thirty million dollars of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts. House Speaker: All in favour of the amended Springfield/pervert bill? (members of congress boo) Bill defeated. Kent Brockman: (on TV) I've said it before and I'll say it again—democracy simply doesn't work. "

3/21/2007 1:01:05 PM

Quote :

"so, what part of "implementation aside" didn't you understand"

3/21/2007 9:42:44 PM

^I understood it and chose to ignore it and give you the runaround. I have since responded to it though.

So...what's the problem here?

3/21/2007 10:28:14 PM

actually, you haven't responded. you've kept on saying "but it can't be implemented..."

3/21/2007 10:56:23 PM