Should There Be Benchmarks For Voting Besides Age?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Feb 18, 2018.

  1. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    ...and should voting be required?
    * I looked for a related thread but did not find one.

    Recently I’ve got the feeling that our Democracy is suffering from, I’ll say it... no I won’t say it, instead I’ll use unfortunate and uninformed voters and/or non-voters. And I am very aware that my definition of unfortunate may be biased on several levels including political leaning.

    So what do you think, should there be any qualifications such as minimum education level? I also realize this could be a slippery slope argument and because the standard (the right to vote) could be manipulated, I have to say NO there should be no metric besides age, even if it sinks us.

    Discussion applies to any country of any MacRumors member. Please don’t call anyone or any group uninformed or the word I avoided (stupid) to avoid having this thread locked.
     
  2. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #2
    So, we can’t require people to have a picture id without being called racist, but requiring a certain level of education would be ok?

    No, there shouldn’t be any “benchmarks” other than age. Voting should also never be required.
     
  3. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #3
    Being a member of the society, end of story.

    You either believe in democracy or not, qualifiers are merely the hooks those who don’t agree with it to control it.

    We’ve had a history with “intellegence” and “civics” tests, they were always used to strip citizens of their right to vote. To think reintroducing those mechanisms into society won’t result in their abuse is foolhearty, especially while the right is actively building their Jim Crow 2.0 project.
     
  4. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #4
    I hear what you’re saying, but no, absolutely not.

    No adult should live in a society that gives them no say so in how they’re governed.
     
  5. A.Goldberg, Feb 18, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2018

    A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #5
    Educational attainment means nothing if you don’t know the platform you’re voting for. If anything I’d suggest a short test proving you know what you’re voting for. The answer could come from a sentence in the question for all I care- as in all you have to do is read the question and you can get the question right. People just need to understand what they’re voting for based on content, not just personality.

    But all of this has problems and is a slippery slope. I’d let things be.
     
  6. Huntn thread starter macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #6
    I’m not arguing, but I am venting some frustration with why things are going so poorly around here. :)
    --- Post Merged, Feb 18, 2018 ---
    Maybe we can also agree that a Democracy of disinterested citizens might end up being a recipe for failure.
     
  7. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #7
    Doesn’t seem there is a benchmark for being President anymore... certainly not a WH staff member, so it’s going to be hard to impose any sort of standard on voters.

    Despite the downsides, the system is better than nothing. I think the electoral college is the bigger issue, ironically for the same reason why many conservatives (wrongly) claim it’s needed.
     
  8. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #8
    I can agree with that, but a better way to attack that problem IMO, would be to try to figure out why we have so many disinterested voters instead of trying to disenfranchise them.

    I really don’t know the answer, but my opinion is that government, particularly at the national level, has been a hideous mess for a long time. Gridlock, failure after failure to exact meaningful change, waste, misinformation, corruption just makes engagement seem futile for many people. Add to that the increasing polarization and it’s something that many people want to avoid like the plague.

    Yet, our culture pushes this notion that everyone should vote, that it’s our civic duty, so what you get is a lot of people who just show up and pull the lever for reasons that don’t always make sense.

    In short, lots of people aren’t interested in the system because it’s kind of dysfunctional. Fix that, and you probably get more conscientious voters.
     
  9. Altis macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    #9
    It was once the case that voters had to be land owners to vote, which was a very different system indeed. Though once universal vote was given, the welfare state was born and government has grown ever since. It certainly changes the dynamic to have people be able to vote for the resource redistribution taken from others.

    Personally, I think we should move away from the concept of voting for people and require voting referendums on legislation itself (like in some parts of Europe). Way too much partisanship and obsession over people, then once they get voted in they can just do whatever they want (often with a minority of voters and always with a minority of citizens voting for them).

    Having to have the backing of the populace for laws, budgets, and other major decisions, would be far more fair than obsessing over which politician people like or hate that end up doing whatever they want anyways. It also removes the conundrum of having multiple parties, each with policies you agree with and some you don't.
     
  10. ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #10
    Doesn't Australia have mandatory voting? Any Aussies want to weigh in on that?
     
  11. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    I wouldn’t impose any additional requirements or make voting mandatory, but I would do things to make voting easier. Every state should offer extensive early voting at as many voting locations as possible and Election Day itself should be a national holiday so no one is forced to choose between voting or working.
     
  12. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
  13. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #13
    Try reading the constitution you're side talks about all the time.

    Lest we change the constitution on gun rights also.
     
  14. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #14
    Isn't this thread having a conversation about changing the Constitution?
    --- Post Merged, Feb 18, 2018 ---
    When you say "recently" are you just referring to the time since Trump won?
     
  15. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
  16. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #16
    I'd lean more towards mandatory voting. Already, certain politicians conspire to reduce turnout-- extra requirements would be doubtless designed around entrenching a particular result, rather than letting the result be determined by the "governed".
    --- Post Merged, Feb 18, 2018 ---
    and mortgaged property presumably does not count?
     
  17. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #17
    Absolutely not. if you're a citizen, you should be able to vote regardless.

    But there should be more requirements for the candidates.

    Something like a standardized test designed for running for politics. Which should include basic domestic knowledge, basic foreign knowledge, memory tests, and etc. I highly doubt people like Trump, Palin, and etc, actually knew the structure of our government.
     
  18. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #18
    If you are liberal you should be barred from voting as well, forgot that one.
     
  19. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #19

    I hear ya. But I would only require it at the Federal level: Presidential and Congressional seat. If I had to vote every time someone makes a proposition, I'd go insane, disgruntled employee insane.
     
  20. Lloydbm41 Suspended

    Lloydbm41

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Location:
    Central California
    #20
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. In order to be an eligible citizen to vote, you should be required to have 4 years of service towards the government. That means, teachers, police, firefighters, politicians, military, peace corps, 3 letter agencies, etc.... if you don’t serve towards the benefit and betterment of this country, you should not have the right to cast a vote towards its future.
     
  21. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #21
    I don't mind the local referenda:
    wanna spend money on parks?
    wanna spend money on schools?
    wanna spend money on roads
    wanna spend money on the jail?

    but the state constitutional amendment proposals seem to be written in deliberately deceptive ways.
     
  22. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #22
    People can only make judgements based on the information they receive.

    Much of it is because the media pushes all the negative news on both sides (it sells).

    When was the last time you heard a feel good story about the government helping. It does happen (not everything the government does is wrong or bad) but you rarely see it reported.
     
  23. Ledgem macrumors 68000

    Ledgem

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hawaii, USA
    #23
    No. There are already efforts being made to make it difficult, if not nearly impossible, for certain groups of people to vote. Having requirements just represents another method that people can use to discriminate and disenfranchise groups of people from voting.

    I do think the voting system can be made better. Instead of a single vote for a candidate, a rank list would be more ideal. As it is, people often vote for the "lesser of two evils," or down party lines. Political parties are killing us - our government was supposed to be balanced by the "separation of powers," but as things stand, the political parties are so entrenched in their own self-interest and self-preservation that the branches of government don't represent separation of powers when one political party takes over all branches. A rank list would allow people to vote for who ever they really want to see win, without feeling like they were throwing away their vote on someone who isn't backed by a major party (and who therefore might have less chance of winning).

    Mandatory voting... mixed feelings on that. On one hand, I wouldn't want people to be forced to participate. On the other hand, having the country fully involved - even if they're somewhat apathetic - would be better. At the very least, it would help to thwart a lot of the efforts to suppress voter turnout.
     
  24. vertical smile macrumors 68040

    vertical smile

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    #24
    T/F There are at least 57 states that make up the U.S.A.
     
  25. Huntn, Feb 19, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2018

    Huntn thread starter macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25
    I agree with you, but it’s through intelligent, informed voting engagement (however we define that) that the system is made better, which is an observation but not my agrument to disenfranchise people.

    The fact is that we all don’t agree with what is best, are driven by our prejudices, or don’t think that it makes a difference if we do or don’t vote. That is the challenge of a democracy, when you have the choice, remaining engaged along with making smart decisions, because a democracy is only as good and as intelligent as the leadership and ultimately the peoples’ leadership choices.

    My perspective is the country has made a string of unhealthy, uninformed, negative choices, leading up to The Ultimate Terrible Choice (Trump) based on prejudices, unrealistic expectations, gullibility, maintaining control no matter what the cost, and arguably a self destructive tendency. We can only excel within the framework of a country, with group endeavor and group well being, not by stabbing each other in the back to achieve personal advantage, because ultimately that will destroy us as a group, losing the huge advantage of We>Me.

    We started out as a respected democracy. I can only wonder what is going to pop out the other end. It’s like we’ve put a dishonest, erratic temper tantrum throwing, 5 year old behind the wheel of the car, and are frantically having to reach over from the back seat grabbing the wheel to keep him from driving us off road or off a cliff.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 19, 2018 ---
    I am fully aware of the ironic nature of this thread in light of the actual attempts to disenfranchise certain demographics of voters, the danger that represents, and how anti-democratic the practise is. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the issue while expressing my frustration of the system as dysfunctional as it is becoming.

    I am a supporter of what has been termed Instant Runoff Voting. For an election you would prioritize your top 2 or 3 choices so that if your first choice does not win, your vote would move to your second choice. This methodology would remove the aspect of spoiler candidates and would allow citizens to vote without fear of throwing away the vote based on ideology, for a candidate unlikely to win.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 19, 2018 ---
    Answer to first question: Is it? My intent has not been to frame it as such, but I’m open to the idea. What do you have in mind?

    Answer to second question: Technically , I’m referencing the time since Reagan, a steady downward slide that steepened drastically with the election of Trump.
     

Share This Page

76 February 18, 2018