[skamed]

Outdated and SUCK system

It should be replaced by the popular vote

One person one vote
every vote should be equal

Discuss

[ShotgunMessiah]

Originally Posted by skamed

Outdated and SUCK system

It should be replaced by the popular vote

One person one vote

This I agree with.

Originally Posted by skamed

every vote should be equal

This I disagree with.

[skamed]

Originally Posted by ShotgunMessiah

This I disagree with.

Explain ?

[ShotgunMessiah]

Originally Posted by skamed

Explain ?

Well I've brought it up a bunch of times, but apparently it's a surprisingly sentitive topic on this board. I think there should be a test required to take before you can vote that covers all of the candidates in some way. It doesn't discriminate against anyone ethnically or any other way but it forces you to learn about all of the candidates before choosing. This way, there's none of the "I'm voting for Obama because he's a brother" or "I'm voting for Bush because I'd like to have a beer with him" or "I'm voting McCain because he's a war hero." All of the votes actually reflect an intelligent choice. You don't pass, you don't vote.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by ShotgunMessiah

Well I've brought it up a bunch of times, but apparently it's a surprisingly sentitive topic on this board. I think there should be a test required to take before you can vote that covers all of the candidates in some way. It doesn't discriminate against anyone ethnically or any other way but it forces you to learn about all of the candidates before choosing. This way, there's none of the "I'm voting for Obama because he's a brother" or "I'm voting for Bush because I'd like to have a beer with him" or "I'm voting McCain because he's a war hero." All of the votes actually reflect an intelligent choice. You don't pass, you don't vote.

Thats incredibly subjective and will be probably be abused by everyone in power. Have a little more faith in the people.

[sumiyia]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Thats incredibly subjective and will be probably be abused by everyone in power. Have a little more faith in the people.

yup. can of worms. pandora's box. etc etc.

[ShotgunMessiah]

Like I said, it's a surprisingly sensitive subject. I don't even know why; it's not like my idea would ever be implemented.

Saying it would be abused is a cop-out response though. It's not saying "Black people can't vote unless they pass" or "Democrats can't vote unless they pass" it's saying NOBODY can vote unless they pass. I don't know why everyone is content to sit fat dumb and happy allowing people who don't know anything to make decisions that alter the future of the country and the world.

I do find it ironic though that you say this:

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Thats incredibly subjective and will be probably be abused by everyone in power.

then immediately after say this:

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Have a little more faith in the people.

You tell me to have faith in the people but you have no faith that the people could implement it?

[sumiyia]

its not even necessarily about the abuse of power. who decides what questions should be in the test? are those questions really an accurate measure of who is informed enough to vote? levels in socio-economic class influence the level of information accessible/gained, so how do we keep the test from turning into a vehicle of discrimination based on class? class and race are invariably linked, so how do we keep the test from turning into a vehicle of discrimination based on race? how does the test square with 14th amendment equal protection?

i think if our goal is informed voters, there's probably a better way around this.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by ShotgunMessiah

Like I said, it's a surprisingly sensitive subject. I don't even know why; it's not like my idea would ever be implemented.

Saying it would be abused is a cop-out response though. It's not saying "Black people can't vote unless they pass" or "Democrats can't vote unless they pass" it's saying NOBODY can vote unless they pass. I don't know why everyone is content to sit fat dumb and happy allowing people who don't know anything to make decisions that alter the future of the country and the world.

I do find it ironic though that you say this:


then immediately after say this:You tell me to have faith in the people but you have no faith that the people could implement it?

There's a difference in allowing the general mass of the people to vote and having a group of elite partisan groups define the terms by which the former should vote. If you allow the masses to vote unconditionally, that is a check against against corrupt elites who seek to preserve power. If its the other way around, they will get in the situation you described above where racial, class, sectarian, and ideological divisions will arise and be used to manipulate people.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by ShotgunMessiah

Like I said, it's a surprisingly sensitive subject. I don't even know why; it's not like my idea would ever be implemented.

Saying it would be abused is a cop-out response though. It's not saying "Black people can't vote unless they pass" or "Democrats can't vote unless they pass" it's saying NOBODY can vote unless they pass. I don't know why everyone is content to sit fat dumb and happy allowing people who don't know anything to make decisions that alter the future of the country and the world.

The reasons its a bad idea is because its undemocratic, it would cause voter turnout to plummet, it would add enormous cost and complexity to the voting process, it would not lead to any change in the way politics is conducted in congress or state capitals (which is an opaque process even to those who are highly educated and well informed people), plus the rationale behind it is wrong

the entire point of it is to disenfranchise people but while that might make other people feel smug that they are informed enough to vote, by disenfranchising people you also destroy their chances of representation. There would be no incentive for elected officials to pay any attention to segments of the population who do not produce many "qualified" voters. It would drive inequality. And yes, minorities would be disproportionately affected because other similar measures such as requiring voters to have a government issued photo id or being able to read have all disproportionately harmed minority voters, so this is not something that can be brushed aside because it is almost certain to be a major effect of something like this. But you're right, its never gonna happen

ws

[ShotgunMessiah]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

The reasons its a bad idea is because its undemocratic, it would cause voter turnout to plummet, it would add enormous cost and complexity to the voting process, it would not lead to any change in the way politics is conducted in congress or state capitals (which is an opaque process even to those who are highly educated and well informed people), plus the rationale behind it is wrong

the entire point of it is to disenfranchise people but while that might make other people feel smug that they are informed enough to vote, by disenfranchising people you also destroy their chances of representation. There would be no incentive for elected officials to pay any attention to segments of the population who do not produce many "qualified" voters. It would drive inequality. And yes, minorities would be disproportionately affected because other similar measures such as requiring voters to have a government issued photo id or being able to read have all disproportionately harmed minority voters, so this is not something that can be brushed aside because it is almost certain to be a major effect of something like this. But you're right, its never gonna happen

ws

I guess I just don't see it that way.

I don't think the cost would be an issue, at least not in areas where they are already using machines to vote. Where they are not (if there even are any anymore) it seems like that's a good incentive to upgrade.

This allows people to demand more of their elected officials since they are better in the know of what they are exactly doing. Even if voter turn-out plummets, so be it. People will get tired of not being heard and they will rise to meet the requirement.

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

There's a difference in allowing the general mass of the people to vote and having a group of elite partisan groups define the terms by which the former should vote. If you allow the masses to vote unconditionally, that is a check against against corrupt elites who seek to preserve power. If its the other way around, they will get in the situation you described above where racial, class, sectarian, and ideological divisions will arise and be used to manipulate people.

I don't think it's a check at all to allow the masses to vote unconditionally. In fact, I think it's the opposite, because if the government controls the media and the media only presents two parties to the masses, there's pretty much a 50/50 shot of winning no matter which side you're on, isn't there?

This forces you to look beyond the mainstream media, since you're only getting a fraction of the picture, educate yourself (which everyone seems to think is such a horrible thing for some reason) and make an informed decision.

It may be a painful process at first, but that's because the country has put itself into a direction which revolves around political correctness, corruption and abuse.

The country needs to change, and the Electoral College is one place to start, but not the only place. When the country makes poor decisions as far as elections go, it may be time to look at who is making the decisions.

[sumiyia]

Supreme Court Decides Challenge to State Voter Identification Laws
In April 2008, the Supreme Court decided a case challenging Indiana's strict voter identification law. In Crawford v Marion Election Board, the Court considered an appeal from a Seventh Circuit decision upholding a Indiana law that required voters to present either a driver's license, a passport, or a state-issued photo identification card. In a 2 to 1 panel decision, Judge Richard Posner found the law not to violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause. Posner wrote, "It is exceedingly difficult to manuever in today's America without a photo id (try flying, or even entering a tall building, such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one). And, as a consequence, a vast majority of adults have such identification." A 2007 study showed that 13% of registered voters in Indiana lacked the required identification and that most of those tend to vote Democratic. (The law disproportionately affects the poor, minorities, and the elderly, who usually vote for Democrats.) The Bush administration took the side of Indiana, arguing in an amicus brief that the state has an interest in "deterring voter fraud."

By a vote of 6 to 3, the Court rejected the challenge. Three justices (Stevens, Roberts, and Kennedy) allowed that an as-applied challenge to the law might have merit if a plaintiff could show that the law placed a special "burden" on his or her ability to vote, such that heightened scrutiny of the law was appropriate. Three concurring justices (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) believed that the Indiana law should be subjected only to rational basis analysis, and that the state's interest in preventing voter fraud constituted a rational basis.

Three dissenting justices (Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) concluded, using a balancing test, that Indiana's interest in preventing voter fraud did not justify the significant burden the law placed on specific groups of voters.

The argument pressed by the plaintiffs that any burden on the right to vote, however slight it is or however meager the number of voters affected by it, cannot pass constitutional muster unless it is shown to serve a compelling state interest was rejected in Burdick v. Takushi and rejected again in Crawford. In Takushi the Court said, "Election laws will invariably impose some burden upon individual voters. . . . [T]o subject every voting regulation to strict scrutiny and to require that the regulation be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest, as petitioner suggests, would tie the hands of States seeking to assure that elections are operated equitably and efficiently."

Fundamental Rights and Equal Protection Clause Analysis: The Right to Vote and the Right to Education

..........

[Jaysh]

I want to know how can I enroll in this Electoral College ? What are the admission requirements?

[skamed]

Originally Posted by Jaysh

I want to know how can I enroll in this Electoral College ? What are the admission requirements?

Not worth it... you'd be better off just paying a diploma mill for a fake degree.

[SoSoHalalish]

Originally Posted by sumiyia

its not even necessarily about the abuse of power. who