Should we create another requirement to vote?

[holvy83]

I am for showing a picture ID to vote to prevent fraud, I am not in favor of more restrictions on who should be allowed to vote, I am sorry but you should not to have been in college or served in the military to be allowed to vote.

[husker_99]

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.

 

Probably so they could say they aren't racist. I know a lot of white people that did this. I feel like too many people gave him a pass when during the tv debates he stole ideas or tried to pass them as his own. Clean coal. Bush was trying that before Obama was even a senator. I don't know i could see that Obama was nothing more than a snake oil salesman when he started campaigning for the President. I do think Obama is hiding a lot more than people realize.

[huskerjack23]

I thought of a kooky idea.

 

I think the executive branch and legislative branch should share a committee of philosophers that have either equal votes, aggregated vote (just one for the whole committee), or a more heavily weighted vote(s).

 

Each state could have a delegate for this delegation and that delegation could vote who'd they want in the federal committee. It'd be like a new congress that REQUIRED certain degrees of education and it what fields.

 

I would have them vote on every bill and require that the philosophers' vote always be the tiebreaker in the event of a tie. We could even keep the vice president involved by letting him/her be on the committee, but his/her vote wouldn't be as heavily weighted. Also, these people would not work in Washington. With the speed of information nowadays, they really do not need to. I'd have them work in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, if it's not just a historical landmark now.

 

Obviously it's just an idea that needs work, but my idea is that we'd need a group of people among our legislators and executives that we're almost guaranteed (by law) to not have biases toward personal status, ideology, corporate influence, and bureaucracy.

 

The founding fathers were about like 30-50 people of the early nation's GREATEST thinkers. I don't understand why we wouldn't want the influence of our greatest thinkers in public policy.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

I thought of a kooky idea.

 

I think the executive branch and legislative branch should share a committee of philosophers that have either equal votes, aggregated vote (just one for the whole committee), or a more heavily weighted vote(s).

 

Each state could have a delegate for this delegation and that delegation could vote who'd they want in the federal committee. It'd be like a new congress that REQUIRED certain degrees of education and it what fields.

 

I would have them vote on every bill and require that the philosophers' vote always be the tiebreaker in the event of a tie. We could even keep the vice president involved by letting him/her be on the committee, but his/her vote wouldn't be as heavily weighted. Also, these people would not work in Washington. With the speed of information nowadays, they really do not need to. I'd have them work in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, if it's not just a historical landmark now.

 

Obviously it's just an idea that needs work, but my idea is that we'd need a group of people among our legislators and executives that we're almost guaranteed (by law) to not have biases toward personal status, ideology, corporate influence, and bureaucracy.

 

The founding fathers were about like 30-50 people of the early nation's GREATEST thinkers. I don't understand why we wouldn't want the influence of our greatest thinkers in public policy.

 

Interesting thought. Only how would we measure it, just because you went to Yale, or Harvard doesn't mean you have a better grasp on an issue. Some of these guys have no real world experience, just all theory. Same could be said for a business owner, they may have street smarts but might not grasp the deeper/long term effects of certain laws. I think we need better people to run for office. I guess on the national level I equate it to the old saying "those who cant, teach"... Only "those who cant, regulate". One thing I think would help is to repeal the 17th amendment so Senators would be elected by state legislators. That might allow the state to have a voice, especially with bills that mandates states take on certain levels of spending to fund programs i.e. Medicare.

[huskerjack23]

I thought of a kooky idea.

 

I think the executive branch and legislative branch should share a committee of philosophers that have either equal votes, aggregated vote (just one for the whole committee), or a more heavily weighted vote(s).

 

Each state could have a delegate for this delegation and that delegation could vote who'd they want in the federal committee. It'd be like a new congress that REQUIRED certain degrees of education and it what fields.

 

I would have them vote on every bill and require that the philosophers' vote always be the tiebreaker in the event of a tie. We could even keep the vice president involved by letting him/her be on the committee, but his/her vote wouldn't be as heavily weighted. Also, these people would not work in Washington. With the speed of information nowadays, they really do not need to. I'd have them work in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, if it's not just a historical landmark now.

 

Obviously it's just an idea that needs work, but my idea is that we'd need a group of people among our legislators and executives that we're almost guaranteed (by law) to not have biases toward personal status, ideology, corporate influence, and bureaucracy.

 

The founding fathers were about like 30-50 people of the early nation's GREATEST thinkers. I don't understand why we wouldn't want the influence of our greatest thinkers in public policy.

 

Interesting thought. Only how would we measure it, just because you went to Yale, or Harvard doesn't mean you have a better grasp on an issue. Some of these guys have no real world experience, just all theory. Same could be said for a business owner, they may have street smarts but might not grasp the deeper/long term effects of certain laws. I think we need better people to run for office. I guess on the national level I equate it to the old saying "those who cant, teach"... Only "those who cant, regulate". One thing I think would help is to repeal the 17th amendment so Senators would be elected by state legislators. That might allow the state to have a voice, especially with bills that mandates states take on certain levels of spending to fund programs i.e. Medicare.

I think the greatest thinkers should be the ones who are the ones deciding the laws that are basically all theory. I guess the education level might not make as much of difference, like Warren Buffet might be a great thinker that I'd want on the committee. It might even be someone who's demonstrated great thoughts and wisdom towards certain areas of life that are crucial to the long term views of the country.

 

I'd say that even John Wooden had and also Tom Osborne has that capacity.

[T_O_Bull]

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?

 

Can't do it due to the high cost of college. The taxpayers would have to fund universal college education. What about trade schools? If I had gone to a trade school and learned how to work with heating and AC or plumbing or brick laying or how to fix a car I would have been ready to earn a living as opposed to my accounting degree that I never used because I got married andhad a wife to take care of. An accountant doesn't make any money unless he has a Masters or CPA degree.

T_O_B

[strigori]

Attaching a requirement to vote that is unattainable for a great part of the people of the country is so wrong I can't think of a word for it. College is expensive, and the simple fact that you graduated does not me you know your ass from a hole in the ground. And some of the most influential people of the last fifty years did not graduate college. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs come to mind immediately.

 

I will go as far as to say that trying to limit who is eligible to vote based of some material item means that the person suggesting it has an agenda that is less than honorable. And quite frankly the idea is discriminatory in its very nature.

[Landlord]

is there a way to statically measure not being an idiot? i think that would be a good one. otherwise i like cacti's idea.

[NUance]

I think only male landowners should vote. Seriously. Our nation has been in the crapper every since women got the right to vote. No need at all for her to vote. It's enough for her to just fetch me a beer and a sammich. And then wait for further instructions.

[gobiggergoredder]

You really shouldn't be allowed to vote if you don't pay taxes. It's really pretty simple, but I'm sure it will get beat up.

[carlfense]

I think only white males between 26-28 with a rural Nebraska background but now lives in Lincoln whose favorite beer is St. Bernardus ABT 12 and loves Watering Hole grilled extra spicy wings and reading Ed Brayton's blog should be allowed to vote.

 

Hopefully I narrowed it far enough.