Quote:
Kiff said:
But you didn't answer my question. If you are going to vote just for the hell of it, without doing any research (for example, solely based on appearance), should you be allowed to?
|
Who would stop it?
Do you think it SHOULD be stopped, and if so, who would do the stopping, and using what?
In a nation of self-governed people, the people either trust themselves collectively to vote, or they don't.
By saying you don't support peoples right to vote, you are saying you don't think people are capable of voting intelligently.
I think that even though there are many ignorant and tragically politically apathethic people out there, I still trust them more than the alternative, which is no voting, or voting by only "select groups".
Quote:
Kiff said:
Or at least we can agree that you shouldn't be voting out of respect if that is the case, not necesarilly be legally disallowed to do it. But then the question is, HOW "informed" should you be?
|
People have a learning curve when it comes to politics, if political apathy is allowed to foster. People are apathetic when they think there is no reason to worry about things, or when they think their "voice" really makes no difference. That means time must pass for them to see the errors of their ways.
Our nation has several generations that are allowed to vote, as well as a collection of various cultures, views and philosophies. This means that at any given vote, there are a percentage of informed, uninformed, interested, disinterested for every election. Ebb and flow occurs as the percentages increase and decline, and usually as governments become more corrupt, people take more action, resulting in less corruption as time passes until that political apathy builds up once again.
Its a matter of ebb and flow mainly I believe.
I don't know if one could require a litmus test for voting, but I hesitate to say I would be against the idea generally without hashing it out over a spirited debate.