Universal suffrage a good thing?

[hmkpoker]

Excellent topic ^_^

I assume we're ignoring issues related to the constitution, and implementing a new voting structure, ab initio, in a theoretical vacuum.

I feel that different people should have different voting weights, depending on how knowledgable they are regarding the issues relative to the vote. A high school dropout who's done nothing with his life or education should not have the same voting power as someone with a PhD in political science and economics. Perhaps the doctor's vote should count as ten votes, or something like that. How exactly this voting weight should be determined, I don't know. It would take years of expert research.

What's your opinion, vultures?

[lehighguy]

Was it the typos or something deeper.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
What state controls should Iraq have?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. But the state right now has very little power, and that is precisely the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
A read of thier constitution makes one wonder how it's going to be different from Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I don't think it had to be this way, but right now I don't see it going any other direction.

[lehighguy]

Iraq should have a loyal standing army, but that is far from an arguement for state involvement in cultural, personal, and business affairs.

[mrmazoo]

The typos, of course.

But seriously, I agree with you that the importance of voting is negligable.

No major change by the people of this country has ever come about as a result of the vote.

The vote didn't get us out of Vietnam.

The vote didn't establish worker's rights.

The vote (ironically) didn't enable women and blacks to vote.

The vote didn't end slavery.

The vote didn't enable women to have legal abortions.

The vote won't end the Iraq war or the War on Terror.

Not only is voting relatively unimportant, it can even be said to be counter-productive when it comes to democracy.

Imagine two people. One of them is politically inert pretty much all the time except when they vote. The other never votes but is active politically in their daily lives.

Which one has more political power?

Voting gives people the illusion of democracy. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient property of a democratic government.

So, my feeling is that it doesn't matter if you only let rich people vote, or smart people, or people who know more trivia about candidates. Change doesn't come about through voting. Pissed off people willing to risk their lives and their livelihoods have ALWAYS been the ones to bring about change, in this or any other country.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The typos, of course.

But seriously, I agree with you that the importance of voting is negligable.

No major change by the people of this country has ever come about as a result of the vote.

The vote didn't get us out of Vietnam.

The vote didn't establish worker's rights.

The vote (ironically) didn't enable women and blacks to vote.

The vote didn't end slavery.

The vote didn't enable women to have legal abortions.

The vote won't end the Iraq war or the War on Terror.

Not only is voting relatively unimportant, it can even be said to be counter-productive when it comes to democracy.

Imagine two people. One of them is politically inert pretty much all the time except when they vote. The other never votes but is active politically in their daily lives.

Which one has more political power?

Voting gives people the illusion of democracy. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient property of a democratic government.

So, my feeling is that it doesn't matter if you only let rich people vote, or smart people, or people who know more trivia about candidates. Change doesn't come about through voting. Pissed off people willing to risk their lives and their livelihoods have ALWAYS been the ones to bring about change, in this or any other country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this really made me laugh for a long time.

[mrmazoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The typos, of course.

But seriously, I agree with you that the importance of voting is negligable.

No major change by the people of this country has ever come about as a result of the vote.

The vote didn't get us out of Vietnam.

The vote didn't establish worker's rights.

The vote (ironically) didn't enable women and blacks to vote.

The vote didn't end slavery.

The vote didn't enable women to have legal abortions.

The vote won't end the Iraq war or the War on Terror.

Not only is voting relatively unimportant, it can even be said to be counter-productive when it comes to democracy.

Imagine two people. One of them is politically inert pretty much all the time except when they vote. The other never votes but is active politically in their daily lives.

Which one has more political power?

Voting gives people the illusion of democracy. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient property of a democratic government.

So, my feeling is that it doesn't matter if you only let rich people vote, or smart people, or people who know more trivia about candidates. Change doesn't come about through voting. Pissed off people willing to risk their lives and their livelihoods have ALWAYS been the ones to bring about change, in this or any other country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this really made me laugh for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

A typical rseponse (ie. ridicule, with no substance).

Care to tell us specifically what I said that you disagree with?

Oh, and please don't disappoint me with the old "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain" argument.

[mrmazoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent topic ^_^

I assume we're ignoring issues related to the constitution, and implementing a new voting structure, ab initio, in a theoretical vacuum.

I feel that different people should have different voting weights, depending on how knowledgable they are regarding the issues relative to the vote. A high school dropout who's done nothing with his life or education should not have the same voting power as someone with a PhD in political science and economics. Perhaps the doctor's vote should count as ten votes, or something like that. How exactly this voting weight should be determined, I don't know. It would take years of expert research.

What's your opinion, vultures?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what vultures' opinion is, but I think yours and other peoples' idea of limiting the voting rights of "uneducated" and "less qualified" people smacks of gross elitism and stems from the mistaken idea that poor and uneducated people are incapable of determining what their own interests are and that therefore smarter, more educated individuals ought to make certain choices for them.

[InchoateHand]

On the plus side, if their horribly myopic ideas were somehow implemented, the vast majority of highly educated people act according to interests far closer to my own--no stupid religiously motivated social policy, none of the false economics of the so-called "conservatives," and less of the idiocy of the current Republican party.

Repeal Suffrage!

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
People are not stupider then they used to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

In regards to political knowledge they sure are. Politics is becoming more complex and people working longer nowadays, people generally have less time to worry about politics.