I did not limit my discussion to rights as universal.

 

The bolded statement is simply not true. Some version of the phrase "the right to vote" is mentioned 5 times, more than any other "right". If a sentence begins with "the right to vote shall not be abridged/prevented [by/due to/etc]" is acknowledging a right to vote.

 

Anyway, we agree that registration should be simple and free. I don't agree with your proposal that voting must be limited to anyone possessing a certain level of knowledge of government functions, because that would be too easy to manipulate and skew in favor of certain groups.

 

Not doing something because it's possible to be manipulated would mean we abandon almost all federal programs. Again you don't need a master in history to vote but we can do better than having a pulse and not getting arrested as qualifications for selecting the most powerful individual in the world.

---

Not doing something because it's possible to be manipulated would mean we abandon almost all federal programs. Again you don't need a master in history to vote but we can do better than having a pulse and not getting arrested as qualifications for selecting the most powerful individual in the world.

Ok, so were do you set the standard, who sets the standard, what points do you use to judge a persons ability to vote? These are just a tiny portions of the questions that would need to be answered in your proposed system and everyone of them is potential point of massive corruption and exclusion. You can't use a standard to judge who gets to vote because setting a standard means excluding people. And excluding people means you open yourself up to a whole heap of dirty play by other people who would like nothing more to disenfranchise those they deem to be responsible for whatever they think is wrong with the country. 

---

Ok, so were do you set the standard, who sets the standard, what points do you use to judge a persons ability to vote? These are just a tiny portions of the questions that would need to be answered in your proposed system and everyone of them is potential point of massive corruption and exclusion. You can't use a standard to judge who gets to vote because setting a standard means excluding people. And excluding people means you open yourself up to a whole heap of dirty play by other people who would like nothing more to disenfranchise those they deem to be responsible for whatever they think is wrong with the country. 

 

No one would set any standard, any citizen can take the course. I don't even care if it's a 100% guaranteed passing of the course, just simply make the people that wish to participate in the electoral process know more than the party on election day.

 

A voters license isn't about weeding out an particular party, it's about weeding out the lazy voter.

 

A voter license would be available to any citizen it would be free of charge and would be a simple class on the three branches of government, their role, how the electoral process works. 

 

Do this and you'll have an electoral base that at least understands what they're voting about.

---

No one would set any standard, any citizen can take the course. I don't even care if it's a 100% guaranteed passing of the course, just simply make the people that wish to participate in the electoral process know more than the party on election day.

 

A voters license isn't about weeding out an particular party, it's about weeding out the lazy voter.

 

A voter license would be available to any citizen it would be free of charge and would be a simple class on the three branches of government, their role, how the electoral process works. 

 

Do this and you'll have an electoral base that at least understands what they're voting about.

 

And would have have a national holiday with free childcare to make sure that everyone can actually take the class without retribution from their employer over needing to miss work for it?

---

No one would set any standard, any citizen can take the course. I don't even care if it's a 100% guaranteed passing of the course, just simply make the people that wish to participate in the electoral process know more than the party on election day.

 

A voters license isn't about weeding out an particular party, it's about weeding out the lazy voter.

 

A voter license would be available to any citizen it would be free of charge and would be a simple class on the three branches of government, their role, how the electoral process works. 

 

Do this and you'll have an electoral base that at least understands what they're voting about.

 

Who determines what questions they ask? Who determines what is a passing grade? Who determines what constitutes a "lazy voter"? Again, these are all points where corruption can enter your system. 

---

And would have have a national holiday with free childcare to make sure that everyone can actually take the class without retribution from their employer over needing to miss work for it?

 

you could make it available 7 days a week for all I care. Like I've said we can do better than a pulse and staying out of prison for qualifications. 

---

Who determines what questions they ask? Who determines what is a passing grade? Who determines what constitutes a "lazy voter"? Again, these are all points where corruption can enter your system. 

 

Make it with no questions, make it a 100% passing class, that's fine. Again the purpose is to make SURE the one's participating in the electoral process understand the three branches of government, their roles, how the electoral process works, the basics.

 

You don't think this is an issue just look at exit polls after federal elections. You know how many people voting can't even name their state Representative?

---

Make it with no questions, make it a 100% passing class, that's fine. Again the purpose is to make SURE the one's participating in the electoral process understand the three branches of government, their roles, how the electoral process works, the basics.

 

You don't think this is an issue just look at exit polls after federal elections. You know how many people voting can't even name their state Representative?

If everyone is going to pass anyway then what's the point? All you're doing is creating another obstacle that is going to turn people away from voting all together. And before you ask; no, that's not a good thing. 

---

If everyone is going to pass anyway then what's the point? All you're doing is creating another obstacle that is going to turn people away from voting all together. And before you ask; no, that's not a good thing. 

 

If they don't understand the basics then yes that's a good thing. Since we've abandoned a representative government and are now dependent on democracy you should at least do everything possible to make sure it's an educated block voting in the process.

 

1 in 3 Americans would fail the naturalization test, that means they don't even know enough to become citizens much less understand the electoral process past party names. There was a study put out a few years back where in 2004 almost 60% of voting participants didn't even know the difference between the House of Representatives and Congress.

 

If you don't understand the check and balances you shouldn't be voting in the elections. EVERYONE voting is NOT a good thing, that is a Mob Rules society and no nation ever lasts under the Mob Rules society.

---

If they don't understand the basics then yes that's a good thing. Since we've abandoned a representative government and are now dependent on democracy you should at least do everything possible to make sure it's an educated block voting in the process.

 

1 in 3 Americans would fail the naturalization test, that means they don't even know enough to become citizens much less understand the electoral process past party names. There was a study put out a few years back where in 2004 almost 60% of voting participants didn't even know the difference between the House of Representatives and Congress.

 

If you don't understand the check and balances you shouldn't be voting in the elections. EVERYONE voting is NOT a good thing, that is a Mob Rules society and no nation ever lasts under the Mob Rules society.

The US does not have a democracy by the strict sense of the term. And people don't necessarily need to understand checks and balances in order to vote. Voting is nothing more than looking at the candidates and saying "This guy/gal lines up best with the views I want represented in politics."

---

The US does not have a democracy by the strict sense of the term.

 

Exactly, and allowing everyone an equal vote without any qualifiers is a democracy not a constitutional republic. Democracy is a fool's gold, it never works and never will.

---

Exactly, and allowing everyone an equal vote without any qualifiers is a democracy not a constitutional republic. Democracy is a fool's gold, it never works and never will.

I think you need to look up what a true democracy is. Because allowing everyone to vote for representatives isn't it.

---

I think you need to look up what a true democracy is. Because allowing everyone to vote for representatives isn't it.

 

When it comes to federal elections, the current standard is closer to Democracy than a Republic.

---

The term "pro-life" is a talking point. It's not an accurate description. "Pro-birth" is more accurate. As stated by another poster earlier and ignored for the most part, most "pro-life'ers" only care about the child until it's born then couldn't care less how it's raised or by whom or if it is even raised at all.

---

When it comes to federal elections, the current standard is closer to Democracy than a Republic.

It's starting to look like you'd fail the very test you're proposing. 

---

The term "pro-life" is a talking point. It's not an accurate description. "Pro-birth" is more accurate. As stated by another poster earlier and ignored for the most part, most "pro-life'ers" only care about the child until it's born then could care less how it's raised or by whom or if it is even raised at all.

*couldn't care less.

---

It's starting to look like you'd fail the very test you're proposing. 

 

You can try and shift the subject all you like the reality remains the same, allowing everyone an equal vote and saying everyone should vote defies the reason why we we're established as a republic and not a democracy.

 

I've said you can put all kinds of conditions on a voters license, you can even make it a 100% passing but we have to make sure people at least understand the basic workings of our system before allowing them to participate.

 

Would you let someone without ANY training or knowledge of a Gun carry one?

 

How much more dangerous is it to have people electing the most powerful individual in the world without any knowledge on their role or limitations?

---

*couldn't care less.

thanks

---

The term "pro-life" is a talking point. It's not an accurate description. "Pro-birth" is more accurate. As stated by another poster earlier and ignored for the most part, most "pro-life'ers" only care about the child until it's born then couldn't care less how it's raised or by whom or if it is even raised at all.

Opposing welfare isn't the same as not carrying. Welfare hurts the poor more than it helps.

---

Opposing welfare isn't the same as not carrying. Welfare hurts the poor more than it helps.

Those food stamp paper cuts are the worst.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!