Conditional Suffrage?

[Warik]

Disclaimer: Just recently started visiting this particular forum, so my apologies in advance if this has already been discussed.

------------

Is conditional suffrage a good idea?

I'm not talking about racial or sexual discrimination here (i.e. "your grandfather's grandfather" recursive discrimination or no women voting), but rather, objective, competence-based restrictions that ensure that the unacceptable ignorance of the masses doesn't elect an unqualified individual into an important position. (Republicans & Democrats, please try to behave - GWB is not necessarily the topic of this conversation).

Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only requirements to register to vote and do so are:

1) 18 years of age or older.
2) Be a US citizen.
3) Not be a convicted felon.

Should that be all?

Example:

Warik: "Who are you voting for in the presidential election?"
Person: "There's an election this year?"
Warik: "Yes. Are you registered to vote?"
Person: "I don't know. Who's running?"
Warik: "George W. Bush is running against John Kerry. Who are you voting for?"
Person: "I don't know... who should I vote for?"
Warik: "I am going to vote for __________. He is a member of the _____________ party. Don't vote for ____________. He's a member of the _____________ party and they are all assholes."
Person: "Ok I will!"

Is allowing "Person" to have the right to vote really in the best interests of this country... or... given the potential effects an individual can have in a particular position of power........... the world?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

On the whole, I think the ignorant and easily manipulated should cancel each other out.

On the other hand, I don't believe in voting online or in having more than one day to vote

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
On the whole, I think the ignorant and easily manipulated should cancel each other out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, they are often partners in crime.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I don't believe in voting online

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe in voting online, and I believe that technology already exists to make it as legitimate as ballot voting.

[ QUOTE ]
or in having more than one day to vote

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor do I.

However, I don't believe in that day being Tuesday. Worst idea ever.

Unless all employers could universally be forced to allow employees to go vote during business hours and pay them for the time they are out..... which would replace the idea of voting on Tuesdays to being the worst idea ever.

[jj_frap]

I support this:

Ban anybody who is a member of a religious organisation that was created for the purpose of maintaining human slavery from voting.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Unless all employers could universally be forced to allow employees to go vote during business hours and pay them for the time they are out..

First of all, it's against the law in all States to take any disciplinary action against employees who take time off from work to vote.

Second, polls are open in most states from 7 AM - 8 PM. I would suggest that only a miniscule percentage of the electorate needs to miss more than an hour or two of work to vote.

I don't agree with forcing employers to pay for the missed time.

[peritonlogon]

Didn't they used to do this in the south? I don't think this is a good idea because of how easily it is to misuse.

Also, being a convict does not prohibit you from voting in many states.

A short quiz on where the presidential candidates stand on major issues would be a good prerequisite. It will keep out the people who voted for bush because they want to have a beer with him.

[DougShrapnel]

My plan would allow for longer time periods of actual voting. It would also create 2 categories of sufferage. There would be some sort of basic competency test. And those people would no longer require representation and would be allowed to vote directly on issues. Other who could not pass the competency test would still have sufferage to vote for representatives.

[DVaut1]

I wonder how many people proposing a civics knowledge test as a voting requirement could actually pass the test they advocate.

[peritonlogon]

Well, maybe, but Kerry supporters will fail their's since even the candidates don't really know where they stand.

BTW, if people are annoyed with the way politics work today (which everyone should be) they should probably not focus on disenfrancising people of which they think less and start focusing on the real problems such as the role of lobbyists, the close connection between the congress and their families, the military, the private sector and the lobby firms or the hijacking of elections using new and improved computer vote rigging machines or the power of a consolidated media.