dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3

1 edit
reply to pnh102

Re: It was approved by the moron voters

Er...don't the interests of a representative government kinda clash with "advice" telling people not to vote?

...and how exactly does knowing the entertainment bimbo elite have any correlation to voting well? Guh, if anything, I wish I could un-learn those morons - maybe they'd be less irritating that way.

said by pnh102:

I like the idea of testing voters on the basics (maybe not a picture test per se) before they can vote. Too bad it is not mandatory.
Ditto. However, then we'd have to constantly fund courses in Politics 101 for everyone using public funds...and getting anyone to agree for percieved political "bloat" is pretty well doomed.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by Thaler:

Er...don't the interests of a representative government kinda clash with "advice" telling people not to vote?
Voting is a responsibility as well as a right. Someone who votes without knowing who or what they are voting for cancels out the vote of someone else who bothered to make an informed decision before he/she cast a ballot. It is not terribly hard to become informed in this day and age either, so that makes it even more justifiable to believe that the ignorant have no business voting at all.

Someone who has no idea who the president is has no business being within 1 mile of a polling place.
said by Thaler:
However, then we'd have to constantly fund courses in Politics 101 for everyone using public funds
That's another thing... why is it always the government's responsibility to teach people these things? We make the effort to become informed voters on our own. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the same of others. Just walk into a public library and google the elections and the candidates. It is no big deal at all.

People should not have to be hand-holded to do the correct thing.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
said by pnh102:

That's another thing... why is it always the government's responsibility to teach people these things?
Because if there's a limiting/deciding factor to vote (a right of every citizen), then its up to the government to also provide the means to meet said requirements. Otherwise, you'll have quite the lot of voters being disenfranchised (for one reason or another), and said measures would be tossed right out.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
said by Thaler:

Because if there's a limiting/deciding factor to vote (a right of every citizen), then its up to the government to also provide the means to meet said requirements.
Not at all. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of firearms ownership but that in no way burdens the government to teach people how to use firearms safely.

Besides, I mentioned in my original post that the government does make available the means by which someone could go learn about the candidates if they so chose. So the ability is there... but if someone chooses not to exercise the responsibility, then that person has no business exercising the right.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
said by pnh102:

said by Thaler:

Because if there's a limiting/deciding factor to vote (a right of every citizen), then its up to the government to also provide the means to meet said requirements.
Not at all. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of firearms ownership but that in no way burdens the government to teach people how to use firearms safely.
Voting is managed in a similar fashion to that as well. I can't see us limiting voting, when another equally dangerous "ignorant user" right still goes unimpeded.

said by pnh102:

Besides, I mentioned in my original post that the government does make available the means by which someone could go learn about the candidates if they so chose. So the ability is there... but if someone chooses not to exercise the responsibility, then that person has no business exercising the right.
However, those means are hardly practical. Not every local presinct also offers a local library (Encino's closest library is located in Tarzana!), so to expect a bare-minimum voter to hit up Google & return just isn't practical. Hell, I have a car, and I know I certainly couldn't drive to both library, research, and drive to the polling center within our required 1 hour of voting time.

Voting is a right, so anyone can vote any damn silly way they please. Even if it cancels out a "good vote", there's no way to say that one man's vote is more worthy than another's. To change such would usurp most of what the voting system stands for today.