The Right to Vote

[kiFF]

America's voter turnout rate has been steadily decreasing for the last few decades. Among the world's democracies, America has one of the lowest voter turnout rate, with only 40% of the population participating in elections, while other countries average around 80%.

Source

Personally, I think this is a discrace. I believe that unexercised freedom will slowly become surrendered freedom. I fear that American citizens will become so politically uniformed and unactive that government will eventually operate entirerly behind closed doors. This is not the direction I want America to head towards, but I think it is where we are going.

I want people to be politically active, but I also want them to make informed decissions. I got in an argument today beause someone said they wanted to vote for something solely based on appearence. I told them that they didn't have the right to vote if that were the case. I consider voting like that equal to "political inactivity". Voting based on appearence is not voting; "voting" is more than checking a box - it is a process.

However, this belief I have is not set in stone. What do you think? Should people be voting if they are not politically informed? If not, how "politically informed" should you be?

Or is it your right to vote however you want, whether you have real justification or not? Isn't that the freedom we fought for?

[Osborn F Enready]

People have as much right to vote as they do the right to revolt against the system in place.

Some view not voting as "revolting", though they neglect the fact that their message is never "solidified" for anyone to interpret. They express dissatisfaction, for dissatisfactions sake, and nothing else.

People today are sadly politically apathetic by and large, and as you said, tragicly uninformed or misinformed.

The first step in regaining our rights to govern ourselves, is again exercising that right, and demanding government allow it.

[kiFF]

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? 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?

[Osborn F Enready]

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".

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.

[kiFF]

Who would stop it? Do you think it SHOULD be stopped, and if so, who would do the stopping, and using what?

I don't think it should be stopped, I think that we need to go to the source and attempt to prevent that type of voting from even being an issue in the first place. To start, I think all schools should require atleast one full year of US Government/Politics. I come from New Jersey, and such a class was not even heard of, but when I moved to Florida, it was a required course to graduate from high school. Not until taking this class did I start to become politically informed, I had no idea what a republican or a democrat was, etc. I think if more schools offered it students classes like this we may eventually have a more informed public. And a more informed public will put pressure on politicians, and we will really be able to get things done.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kiff said: I don't think it should be stopped, I think that we need to go to the source and attempt to prevent that type of voting from even being an issue in the first place.

I couldn't agree more. I am always pro-education regarding politics, but that is a hard wall to hurdle for a lot of reasons.

There are several generations of people who were "raised" not to talk about issues such as politics, religion, sex, and those are the hardest to even breach the topic with as far as reaching, legal age voters.

I agree, responsible citizens should do what they can to help educate people by spreading information on how to get political information thats reliable.

Its a huge task.... I know I try to do my part.

Kiff said: To start, I think all schools should require atleast one full year of US Government/Politics. I come from New Jersey, and such a class was not even heard of, but when I moved to Florida, it was a required course to graduate from high school.

Wow!

When I graduated in Ohio, in 1990, U.S. Government was a required course for graduation, but I don't think its nearly enough. We also had 4 years of social studies required between Junior High and High School.

Its no wonder people are so dis-satisfied with public education.

Kiff said: Not until taking this class did I start to become politically informed, I had no idea what a republican or a democrat was, etc. I think if more schools offered it students classes like this we may eventually have a more informed public. And a more informed public will put pressure on politicians, and we will really be able to get things done.

I agree.

Our public school system is terribly far behind, which is why many want to abolish it, and do a more responsible and efficient system.

[brien]

Should people be voting if they are not politically informed?

Enfranchisement, and all of the accompanying rights and responsibilities, are not a matter of education. It is stricly a matter of citizenship. It has to be independent of any type of means test otherwise you can means test anyone out of the process.

A better reform would be to conduct elections on weekends, over a period of perhaps 2 days, to allow more people to vote rather than making them que up before or after work on a given Tuesday.

A better reform would be to have a free and fair ballot access.

A better reform would be to have free and open access to debates for ALL candidates, not merely those annointed by the establishment.

[Suburbanite]

I'm politically informed, and I say people should stop voting entirely.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sub said: I'm politically informed, and I say people should stop voting entirely.

I have never once, in my entire life, seen a situation where having no voice was better than having one.

Not voting is the equivalent of saying "Do anything you want, we don't care".

The reality is they are doing what they want, because people aren't taking action to hold these treasonous bastards accountable.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have never once, in my entire life, seen a situation where having no voice was better than having one. Not voting is the equivalent of saying "Do anything you want, we don't care".

But "Representative Democracy," by its very nature, is letting someone else be your voice, and has been the cause of a great many problems. Perhaps it's not nearly so flawed as rule by priests and kings, but one can see such trends emerging anyway, as well as political dynasties taking shape. I fail to see how voting is going to do much to reverse trends that have already been built into the system.

And when politicians get elected, there is little guarantee with what they will do, other than how bad much of it will probably be. I increasingly find voting for representatives to be stupid, a perversion of self-responsibility and even an affront to real democracy.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps said: But "Representative Democracy," by its very nature, is letting someone else be your voice, and has been the cause of a great many problems.

So, the obvious question? What is better?

The reason we have representative LIMITED democracy is because of the truth behind the old saying "too many cooks in the kitchen makes for a poor meal".

In a representative LIMITED democracy, the people pick who they think will represent them best, theoretically, and that person will accept the ACCOUNTABILITY for those decisions, made in the peoples name.

The KEY to keeping a representative LIMITED democracy in check, is HOLDING THE DECISION MAKERS ACCOUNTABLE WITH FEROCITY.
The American PEOPLE have failed at this, the government is only doing what it can get away with.

Gramps said: Perhaps it's not nearly so flawed as rule by priests and kings, but one can see such trends emerging anyway, as well as political dynasties taking shape. I fail to see how voting is going to do much to reverse trends that have already been built into the system.

The system didn't fail, THE PEOPLE FAILED THE SYSTEM by neglecting their RESPONSIBILITIES to hold people accountable.

Is this not obvious?

Gramps said: And when politicians get elected, there is little guarantee with what they will do, other than how bad much of it will probably be. I increasingly find voting for representatives to be stupid, a perversion of self-responsibility and even an affront to real democracy.

Well, "real democracy" is a fools game, and anyone can, or should be able to explain why.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready So, the obvious question? What is better?

If we stop listening to them and try real democracy.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Real democracy is failure gramps.

I would never subject myself to such nonsense.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Real democracy is failure gramps. I would never subject myself to such nonsense.

How is anti-authoritarian democracy "nonsense?"
Look at german democracy in the '32 elections, for example.
That alone is reason to consider taking "nonsense" seriously.

Grandpa h.

[Charlatan]

So you think that voting with no information about the candidates is criminal? Well I'd say that it is nearly impossible to have no information about all the candidates, as you are either voting for someone you have heard something good or bad about, or voting against the things you have heard about them, so you are always at least a bit informed when you cast your vote. The problem that so few people turn out to vote is that people are not worried about change, if the other parties get power they can't see the world chaning that much so as to waste their afternoon standing in line, so they must be pretty sure that their lifestlye will be the same or better off in the future. In third world countries people want to see changes so they stand in lines checking those boxes like crazy, they want to improve their lifestyle a lot. Is it then fair to say that people will complain after the candidates are chosen but will not bother to choose the candidates themselves, isn't that like choosing your second choice and then moaning. Well it makes for good news coverage.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think it is more a problem of information fraud, than anything else Charlatan.

If information was valid and factual, people would be much better off.

Informational fraud crime has to be the biggest crime in the United States today.

Center for Media and Democracy | Publishers of PR Watch

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

perhaps it's time to consider forced franchise

with a $1000 fine for those who fail to register for their voting rights and a further $1000 fine for failing in their democratic duty

the future elections in each state could include a simple referendum question as to whether this should be considered for future legislation

[Praxius]

If you can form an opinion, you can vote, that's how I see it.

[Chaossaber314]

A lot of people seem almost militant in punishing people who do not excercise their rights.

That just seems completely moronic. A right is something that you have the ability to do and the decision with which to decide whether or not to do so. When you force someone to exercise a right, it is no longer a right and explicitly an obligation.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 A lot of people seem almost militant in punishing people who do not excercise their rights. That just seems completely moronic.

Thank you! I've always found it utterly disgusting how peopel say "if you can't vote you have no right to complain!" Well, what if you think voting, the system, and citizenship is mostly nonsense?

The point of voting is that you recognize the system as valid, and obviously not everyone is going to agree with that. In voting, one is actually relegating their "rights" and repsonsibilities over to someone else.

I'm not necessarily in the majority, but I'm not embarassed.

Grandpa h.