Vote-

[ASsman]

Vote.
Tell everyone to vote.
See someone on the street, tell him to vote or you will shove a spoon up his/her ass.
Tell your parents.
Your pets.
Your spanish speaking, Corona drinking, landscaping neighboors.
Every-fucking-one.
Why?
Because we can and it is only logical that we do.
Talk to them, tell them to whats going on, do something, or die trying.

VOTE ASSMAN FOR CLASS PRESIDENT!

[paulk]

The problem with telling everyone to vote is that hardly anyone actually takes the time to educate themselves to the point where they can make an educated decision. It seems like most people vote for who they are supposed to vote for--black people vote for democrats, christians vote for republicans (I said "it seems like most people"; I know that all black people don't vote for democrats and same for the christians). They register with whatever party their parents tell them to and that determines how they vote for the rest of their life. And people who fail to vote out of apathy don't deserve to take part in the political system anyway.

Even though Every Vote does not count.

[EN[i]GMA]

Honestly, wouldn't fewer, more educated people voting be better? If EVERYONE voted we would be in a hell of a shape becase, quite frankly, there are people who don't need to be voting. If your not compelled to vote, don't vote is my opinion.

[ToucanSpam]

those educated in the party systems and politics should vote. tjose wanting to legalize drugs should be thrown into a pit filled halfway with poop and eggs.

[EN[i]GMA]

Actually I was thinking the complete opposite.

[paulk]

those educated in the party systems and politics should vote. tjose wanting to legalize drugs should be thrown into a pit filled halfway with poop and eggs.

I don't understand.

[jabumbo]

everyone deserves the right to vote because it is a matter of popular opinion...if there were a majority of people out there who are pro-legal drugs, then it would actually make sense to entertain that thought...but being that most people arent for soething like that, it makes those folks who are look like extremists

[ChrisLove]

I have often wondered if it would be a good idea to have some kind of test come with the voting paper. in the UK we have been promised a referendum on the european constitution, it is such a complicated issue and I fear that it will be decided on the basis of things like ' people dont trust the French'.

People should have to give valid reasons for there votes! I know its impractical im just saying....

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's stupid. Just saying there's no real point in getting them to vote if they don't already feel compelled to. I see a point in them getting educated, THAN voting. Not just walking into the booth this November and voting for X candidate because your friend said he was "pretty cool".

[LIMERICKFILE]

those educated in the party systems and politics should vote. tjose wanting to legalize drugs should be thrown into a pit filled halfway with poop and eggs.

Because, honestly, the human mind can only handle one social issue in a lifetime, so if they choose that one, they aren't as good as you are.

[Ace42]

I have often wondered if it would be a good idea to have some kind of test come with the voting paper. in the UK we have been promised a referendum on the european constitution, it is such a complicated issue and I fear that it will be decided on the basis of things like ' people dont trust the French'.


I concur. I think the end of mandatory education (GCSEs / Highers) should represent a minimal voting qualification, also for a tiered system of social benefits. "Yeah, I was young, I couldn't be arsed to work at school when I had no responsibilities, I disrupted other people's learning, and now I can't get a job" - Whose' fault is that?

Problem is, it would be easy for it to be subverted. IE the tests could be racially or socially descriminatory; they don't take biological learning difficulties, etc into account. Likewise, idiots deserve to be represented in society - we can't have a slave class and say "it is ok, because they are stupid"

It's a pickle.

[ASsman]

That would be unfair to the conservatives..... I have seen the demographics.

[ChrisLove]

Yea there are all sorts of problems with the idea, who decides what constitutes a valid reason for voting for someone, for a start. It would be very difficult to keep it fair. I just get annoyed that we are going to have a referendum in the UK on a subject that the average person knows next to nothing about.

[Funkaloyd]

I think the end of mandatory education (GCSEs / Highers) should represent a minimal voting qualification

I was pretty much completely out of school at 15, and between then and 14 I'd hardly been at all. Surely you wouldn't deny me the right to vote based on that?

The system would be a great way to keep lower classes and minorities down. In most places in the world poor kids are much more likely to leave school early, and though it's not as prevalent in the developed world as it was several decades ago, it still happens. If you deny them political representation, then you've got a cycle of poverty.

[Ace42]

I think the end of mandatory education (GCSEs / Highers) should represent a minimal voting qualification

I was pretty much completely out of school at 15, and between then and 14 I'd hardly been at all. Surely you wouldn't deny me the right to vote based on that?

The system would be a great way to keep lower classes and minorities down. In most places in the world poor kids are much more likely to leave school early, and though it's not as prevalent in the developed world as it was several decades ago, it still happens. If you deny them political representation, then you've got a cycle of poverty.

Here education is mandatory until 16. If you were out of school before that, you'd be breaking the law, itself reason enough for disbarring under the US system.

There is no reason in the UK for someone not to complete their GCSEs etc, and there are always qualifications available for people who missed it the first time around. Most college here offer GCSEs etc. If "poor kids" choose to throw away the opportunities given to them for free, then they do not deserve a say in how the country is run.

[Funkaloyd]

In the US individual States get to decide who gets to vote (as long as they keep it Constitutional), and I don't believe that any of them consider truancy a crime to be punished by disenfranchisement.

Anyway, if you don't believe that every citizen should have the right to vote, then I don't think that I can effectively counter that. I'd have to make an argument which would be comparable to using the Bible to prove that God exists―I'd have to take ideas on the rights of humans from pro-democracy and pro-liberty literature.

But why should the right to vote be based on completion of mandatory education in particular? The little history and social studies that's taught here doesn't give students any background information on the vast majority of the issues which face the world, and the history books that are chosen for classroom use are largely biased towards what I'd call "the West". Are things any different there?

If every voter is raised on government endorsed history, then you have a system which embraces what George Orwell said: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

[Ace42]

I
Anyway, if you don't believe that every citizen should have the right to vote, then I don't think that I can effectively counter that.

It is debatable. But as Chrislove pointed out, the dense majority of voters don't know anything about the issues, and thus are easy for the existing government to manipulate. Proving that you have at least had an education would be a step towards *informed* voting occurs. You do not let children vote, why would you let people with the knowledge / intelletual capacity of children?


But why should the right to vote be based on completion of mandatory education in particular? The little history and social studies that's taught here doesn't give students any background information on the vast majority of the issues which face the world, and the history books that are chosen for classroom use are largely biased towards what I'd call "the West". Are things any different there?

I'd like to think so. The education system is supposed to be impartial, much in the same way that the state funded BBC is. The fact that the BBC is more impartial than privately financed US news services I think is a testament to that sort of achievement. While there is a risk that indoctrination can occur, I think informed and educated individuals are less likely to be indoctrinated in schools than they are currently being indoctrinated by television and printed media. At least in schools a minimum standard of factual content rather than opining and ranting is maintained.


If every voter is raised on government endorsed history, then you have a system which embraces what George Orwell said: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

Indeed, which is why people have to work at being scrupulously honest. However, as you say, the key bit to that is "controlling the present" - schools do not do that. It would make more sense to divorce the media and politics than schools and politics.