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.