Should we create another requirement to vote?

[Haspula]

Such as not only do you have to be 18, but you have to have completed 4 years of college

 

Would that be good or bad?

[mmmtodd]

i dont know if thats the answer, but ive always thought it was funny that you could shape the direction of the country while still not being considered mature enough to have a beer.

 

how does that make any sense?

 

maybe an either/or...2 years of college and/or military service. gives sometimes impressionable teens a little more life experience and the ability to separate emotion from reality perhaps? I know my sister was 18 and her first vote was the obama election...her and several of her friends fell in love with the magic of his campaign. ask some of them today, and they dont have a clue why they ever voted for him.

[Landlord]

There's no right answer here, at least not one that can go across the board. The reason being, you can't quantify maturity or intelligence.

[74Hunter]

I don't think that it is too much to ask that you should have to at least show picture ID to make sure that you are a legal citizen.

 

It's a long shot, but I also think that you should have to take a very simple test to show that you know enough about the voting process and are intelligent enough to vote, such as knowing who the vice-presidential candidate is, what party they represent, and some of their stances on issues.

 

Doing so would likely have helped us prevent the "hanging chad" incident and the Obama presidency.

[Army Husker]

Such as not only do you have to be 18, but you have to have completed 4 years of college

 

Would that be good or bad?

I've discovered that college doesn't do that much to raise one's maturity level; I've seen plenty of idiot college grads. Interesting question though. I can't think of any way that you could change it, though I do like mmmtodd's suggestion.

[Landlord]

I don't think that it is too much to ask that you should have to at least show picture ID to make sure that you are a legal citizen.

 

It's a long shot, but I also think that you should have to take a very simple test to show that you know enough about the voting process and are intelligent enough to vote, such as knowing who the vice-presidential candidate is, what party they represent, and some of their stances on issues.

 

Doing so would likely have helped us prevent the "hanging chad" incident and the Obama presidency.

 

 

The funny thing about Obama is that he was elected based on principles that African-American's in power have been trying to get rid of for decades, judging someone based on their skin color.

[huskertim]

This is kinda scary. Seriously, look at the history of this kind of thinking. Polling taxes and literacy tests where common instruments used to keep blacks from voteing in the earlier part last century. I fully support the idea of requireing some form of identification to prevent voter fraud, but the idea that any one group of people could possibly be both qualified to determine what standards would be applied and unbiased enough to not favor their own agenda in doing so is very naive. I find the whole conversation to be very egalitarian. After all, if I where to administer your polling test, are you sure you would pass? Stupid and immature people are still citizens like it or not, but I would contend that we all to often assess another's intellegence by their tendency to agree with our own views.

[74Hunter]

This is kinda scary. Seriously, look at the history of this kind of thinking. Polling taxes and literacy tests where common instruments used to keep blacks from voteing in the earlier part last century. I fully support the idea of requireing some form of identification to prevent voter fraud, but the idea that any one group of people could possibly be both qualified to determine what standards would be applied and unbiased enough to not favor their own agenda in doing so is very naive. I find the whole conversation to be very egalitarian. After all, if I where to administer your polling test, are you sure you would pass? Stupid and immature people are still citizens like it or not, but I would contend that we all to often assess another's intellegence by their tendency to agree with our own views.

It is scarier to me that an uneducated and an uninformed populace or people that aren't smart enough to figure out a simple voting machine can determine the leader of the free world.

[krill]

Sounds good to me.

 

Let's start with the 4 year degree requirement.

 

Then add on a literacy test (I know people with a bachelors who are functionally illiterate). If you can't read obviously you shouldn't vote.

 

Then let's add on a poll tax of $500 or so. Put your money where you vote is.

 

Then let's add on a land ownership requirement. Obviously if you don't own land you don't have a vested interest in government representation.

 

Then let's add on a naturalization requirement of 40 years. Reach back and take away the vote from all those illegals Reagan gave amnesty to.

 

Then let's get rid of government panhandlers. Recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, government employees, government contractors etc. Panhandlers will always vote for more handouts.

 

Then let's get rid of the nineteenth amendment. This country pretty much went strait down the tubes when the womenfolk started voting. Get back to the kitchen!

 

Now I think we can start to have a vote that represents the voice of the real America.

[mmmtodd]

sounds good to me.

[huskertim]

A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.

Theodore Roosevelt

[Malth]

this is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Such as not only do you have to be 18, but you have to have completed 4 years of college

 

Would that be good or bad?

Are we reverting back to Jim Crow Laws now?

[Husker NoNo]

Sure conservatives would love the idea of people being mandated to spend at least 4 years at the bastion of "communist-liberal" thought the current academy.

[killer cacti]

I don't think there should be a requirement as much as you should have to read the policies and vote for them instead of a name. The person behind those policies then would be elected. That way you keep people from voting straight ticket (dumbest thing ever IMO), voting or not voting for someone because of their gender, and voting or not voting for someone because of their race.

 

The best thing for our country would be to eliminate campaign marketing and voting for policies with secret candidates. Once that candidate is elected, they must sign a contract to keep true to their policies as a promise to the people they represent.

 

Off-topic, but wanted to get off my chest...The people that the politicians represent should vote for their pay raise, not the politicians themselves. The people I work for don't allow me to give pay raises to myself, so why should we?