Agnostic.com

19 0

Do you think our voting pool needs purging?

I have some unconventional ideas about voting. I believe the way the voting system is set up is creating serious problems in our country. By allowing anyone over the age of 18 to vote, the voting pool is full of irresponsible people who are prone to vote according to their own special interests, causing politicians to make choices for our country based more on pandering to the largest minority groups creating situations that cause more harm than good.

I think to fix the problem we should set standards for people to meet before they can vote that indicate they are responsible and concerned about the future of their society. The standards need to be broad enough so people of every gender, race, and socioeconomic level can meet them but restricted enough to filter out people who are more concerned with their own self interest than creating a strong country.

Someone once suggested military service as the dividing line. I think that's heading the right direction but is less than ideal. Military are going to be more likely to see military solutions to our problems, be more inclined to be suffering from mental illness, and be unevenly distributed across gender lines. I would suggest requiring people to be parents before they can vote. Only allow people to vote who have parented a child for at least five years. While it's not perfect, those people will typically be more responsible, less self-centered, more concerned about the future of their country, and less persuaded by emotional arguments.

What do you think? Am I way off base?

UpsideDownAgain 7 Nov 6
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

19 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

If you want responsible, informed voters then cut military spending by 20 percent and inject every last penny of the savings into education.

0

You have put no thought into your post at all.Just one point I will use as an example .Husband and wife young couple ,she asks "you are voting" ,"yes" he replies ,she says" we have no kids" ,his reply ,"you haven't".
I would not trust most people in the forces to have a clue about politics.
I have seen those Marine chants I would assume they know very little about life in the real world with bills to pay, food to buy, transport to work and medical needs.I was in the forces in the UK and we are looked after all our needs.

1

It would be better to simply educate the population and require a year of volunteer work for compassion development to be considered an actual adult. So that every voter gains a broader perspective.

I think that idea has some merit.

3

No. Over the las ten year the number of cases of actual verified intentional voter fraud has been less than 100, ttu of billions of votes. Striking tens or hundreds of thousands off the voter rolls to "prevent voter fraud" is a joke.

The purges always seem to take place where it affects minorities and poor people the most. The purging is just stacking the deck for republicans to have a greater chance of winning.

4

Way the hell off base.

3

Your logic is faulty in that your voting system seems to have the only desirable outcome is to have a "strong country". I should not need to remind people that pre-WWII Germany and Japan were "strong" countries as was the post WWII Soviet Union. Myself, I view the standard of living of the people of Denmark (not a very "strong" country), to be something to be desired over being "strong".

I didn't really develop that aspect of my argument but I'm more in line with you on what I would consider a strong country. I think when the individual people are strong, the country is strong.

2

yep, way way WAY off base. there is already too much purging going on. if the idea is to have educated voters voting, then educate the voters. that means voting for people who will allow and voters to be educated, rather than purged.

g

3

Elitism is ugly, disgusting and undemocratic.

3

Yeah parentage is a bad criteria. My parents clearly don't care about leaving a better world for their children. Im less worried about the responsibility of young people than the tribalistic fear and "fuck it bring on the apocalypse" yearning of many older and religious folks. A year of mandated civic service isnt a bad idea for the country in general, sort of like Israels requirement to join the military, but everything from peace corps to other volunteer and civic pitching in of most sorts should count. None of this necessarily should earn the right to vote.

I think one realistic measure would help: second choice voting. Where you pick your first choice, then your second and third so that a vote for a third party candidate never gets thrown away or helps give an election to the wrong party. We also need to make corporate donations to campaigns illegal or at least require candidates to wear nascar coveralls with patches of their corporate masters plainly visible. Until citizens united ends, corporations are in charge and we're fucked one way or another.

You should have to have scored 120+ on an IQ test at some point in life to vote, and over 130 to run for office. We also have to make it illegal for current reps to vote on their own pay raises or redistricting their areas to make reelection easier. How the fuck was that ever ok?

I was with you until the IQ stuff. At 120, you've got around 10% of the population; at 130 you're down to 2%. I dunno what the options are like currently, but I know in the past IQ tests have been accused of being passively, defacto racist (not sure the way to phrase: "ends up selecting poor outcomes for minorities who do not have cultural exposure to the types of material used" ). Maybe there are better tests these days? Anyway, I don't think permitting only the "smartest" tenth of a people is in line with American values. It's certainly not egalitarian.

@TheMiddleWay can confirm 😉

@stinkeye_a @themiddleway Im aware n that condition is mostly tongue in cheek, idealistically wishing there was a way to make the voting pool smarter. originally I was going to write that these are the conditions for white guys over 30 to vote, and was going to say that women should get 2 votes, people of color should get 3, and if youre native american, veteran or a woman of color you get 4, but thats even more idealistically tongue in cheek lol.

@TheMiddleWay yeah if we could find a less biased way to determine some amount of good social and common sense, and disqualify the bottom 30 percentiles at least from voting that would be fine with me, egalitarianism be damned. But then I also must remind myself that even the mentally handicapped are usually kind enough in intention to deserve a vote more than a lot of "average" people I know. Oh well, we can dream.

1

Isn't the entire of idea of voting to do so in your best interest? Whatever that may be.

Yes, to a certain extent. But some people interest is to build a better world for their children and others is to make sure they have more stuff than other people.

@Meili That is true, but does not dimish the right to do it.

2

Just WHO will make the purging decisions?

We will choose juries at random... 12 men and women, stout and true!

2

You are way off base! It is not a voting block that needs to be purged... It is humankind! We need a big bottleneck, a huge asteroid strike for example, to level the playing field.

Hmm..., a bunch of shell shocked, disoriented survivors making all the laws? Sounds exciting.

@Meili I know I can hardly wait! 😉

1

Military service would also rule out a lot of conscientious objectors, and it instils a very sub optimal way of thinking as well. Not a solution I would choose.

No I think requiring a university degree of any kind would be as good a dividing line as any.

And I agree that there should be some sensible restriction about who is allowed to become a parent and how many kids you can have.

A lot of the smartest people I know including myself didnt get to graduate. If education was free/supremely affordable Id agree with you but as it is this would just ensure continued rule by the rich.

@Wurlitzer a fair point, you’d need to reform the schools to be more of a meritocracy and less of a lottery or influenced by the rich, and then make education up to at least a bachelor’s degree funded by the taxpayer.

@Denker Because education is a factor that can be manipulated by TPTB, it isn't a good solution.

@Meili TPTB? I think it’s still a better solution than anything else.

1

An IQ test along with a civics test could improve intelligence, but if you can't vote you shouldn't pay taxes period

I agree. We had a war over this exact issue.

1

I agree entirely that there should be limits to who can vote. We already take away voting rights for felons, immigrants, and younger people, but we refuse to take away voter rights for people who foster hate and racism, don't care about anyone but themselves and aren't educated on the topics they're voting on.

People get lied too, either don't know or don't care because they like the liar and spread those lies as truth to their friends and family. Old people who couldn't care less about the environment get a vote but children who are going to be on the planet a lot longer don't. Elderly that care mostly because they've got nothing better to do than complain about millenials, want to go back to a time where we had separate drinking fountains for black people but couldn't give two shits that the same candidate wants to deregulate as much as possible to destroy land and pollute more so their friends can make more money as the CEO of Exxon.

The system is beyond broken, it's corrupt through and through. Politicians have learned that lying is a viable tactic that garners no repercussion and have built a system of zero accountability because stupid people stick with them no matter what they say. On top of that the popular vote doesn't even matter and the last 3 presidents we've had only have a 33% popular vote win rate.

I don't necessarily know what the line should be or how to make it fair but also usable, however I think not everyone should get a vote. A vote should be earned, through probably a myriad of different possible channels but earned none-the-less. If people want to vote, there should be a viable method for them to earn it. I don't want to take anyone's vote away, I just want people to be forced to learn HOW to vote.

That why people need to take Civics classes.
It's not reasonable to deny any citizen their Constitutional right to vote.
I don't like the way A LOT of people vote, but that doesn't mean they should have their right to do so taken from them.

@KKGator I'd use our current political climate as evidence that they SHOULD have their right taken away. Using the 250 year old Constitution as a perfect document for our election process really doesn't make a lot of sense. You know who couldn't vote back then when it was originally written? Guess how much corporate interests and lobbyists factored into the election process? What did the Constitution say about SuperPacs and propoganda news channels? Things have changed, and we should be changing with them. I mean unless you think politics is doing great just the way it is.

I'm not advocating that there is anyone who CAN'T earn the right to vote, but I am saying that everyone should be required to earn it and if they decide not too, then they can't vote.

@mattersauce most of what has kept two unworthy parties in power isnt actually constitutional. On a level playing field other parties would easily keep them in line as many of them have had something they stood for. Granted the individuals would be corrupted but then its time to turn them loose.

@TheMiddleWay I'm not interested in specifying certain groups (even hate) and taking their voting rights away. The route I would go would be closer to creating a path to earn your right to vote. The problem with politics isn't based on opinions, it's ignorance. If you think life begins at conception that's an opinion, if you think immigrants cause more crime that's ignorance. Ignorance can be defeated with education, and ignorance is rampant among our voter base. The facts and truth are not perception or maleable or less important than opinions. You may think climate change isn't real, but you're fucking wrong and it can be proven. Then if you want to vote for candidates that ignore it because you're a selfish prick, then at least everyone knows it's not because you were lied too and believe your candidate.

However a lot of people would change their votes if they knew the truth. I know this specifically because there is so much money spent on lying to people. If they're spending that money to lie to so many people, it's because it's benefiting them later on. We should be cognizant of it, and combating it with a system that addresses it. Idealism isn't wanting to change the current system, it's expecting the current system to just "get better" by voting or hoping.

@TheMiddleWay I disagree with almost everything you said.

There are statistics on immigrant crime versus all non-immigrant crime. That's not an opinion, if you IGNORE the data then you're using your own opinion and that's the exact problem I've been repeating.

Who's truth? There is 1 truth, which is the actual truth. Not believing someone who is telling you the truth is NOT okay. That is what we currently live in because some people actually think the truth can be altered. There are varying degrees of accuracy for retelling the truth, however there is still a specific truth.

Idealism is absolutely not working on new and different methods to alter the current system. If you aren't interested in using unproven methods for anything, then you're advocating for never learning anything new, and if you hope things get better by using the same proven failed system, that's idealism.

You're not showing me different thoughts or concepts, you're completely wrong and think that's acceptable. Taking everything I've said and saying the exact opposite even though it's crap isn't a retort, it's not a philosophical view point, it's flat out wrong.

@TheMiddleWay So there's no real truth, then why am I talking to you? I completely disagree and you think there's an equal and opposing truth to everything I say. You're useless in a discussion.

@TheMiddleWay "Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "one truth", as the popular meme I've included decisively demonstrates." You used a meme as your evidence of there being no truth. It's not that I don't want to discuss anything, as you can see I'll go back and forth pretty much for-fucking-ever, however I'm not interested in nailing jello to the wall and ignoring the futility.

@TheMiddleWay The 6 & 9 meme doesn't prove that there is no "1 truth". It is a comic, in reality you can't find anywhere where there is a number that needs to be understood (not art) by a human that does not indicate whether the number is a 6 or a 9. It's like saying that because someone can draw a picture of a never-ending staircase, this proves that stair cases never end. It's a false equivalency that you've taken too far. You are confusing improper perspective or perception with the inability of a single truth to exist. The truth exists regardless of how people understand it, or perceive it, or lie about it, or mistake it.

@TheMiddleWay I've got to be honest here, we're not getting anywhere and I'm not interested in saying the same thing over and over again. If you think there are multiple truths that depend on perception, we're never going to agree. Thanks for the talk.

@TheMiddleWay You are fucking ridiculous. You're not right just because you want to continue a discussion where you refuse to address your main problem.

truth - noun

  1. the quality or state of being true.
  2. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
  3. a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

Definition number 3 is THIRD for a fucking reason. "The quality or state of being true" is not what ANYONE says it is. It's what is able to be proven by fact or reality.

You can drag as much of your ignorance regarding physics as you want into this to try to confuse the point but you're fucking wrong and you seem to think that quoting me and then adding incorrect assumptions or false dichotomy's in an attempt to prove me wrong is a viable tactic that probably works with some people, but not here.

Religion isn't proving shit, they CLAIM they know the truth however they've been proven wrong time and again and have had to create new addendums to try and hold what little credibility they can with believers. In reality everything that science CAN have tested they've proven wrong. This is PRECISELY your fucking problem. You can't understand that the church is lying, you just consider it another version of the truth which is equally valid. It's not, the truth is what actually happened, it is NOT what someone says happened. If someone repeats it perfectly, then that is the truth, if someone retells it poorly, they are mistaken, if someone tries to make false claims about it, they are lying. These are not all equal versions of the truth and the very simple fact that you can't understand this makes you very significantly flawed in your ability to comprehend literally anything.

I don't plan on reading anything that you propose as you clearly can't grasp basic concepts such as the definitions of words so acting as if your superior grasp on physics, quantum mechanics, or relativity will win the day is laughable at best. Maybe you try reading a dictionary and then we can continue.

@TheMiddleWay Holy shit yes I'm absolutely going to continue using the dictionary (my 1 book) for definitions of words because that's what it's for. Unfortunately for you your inabilty to grasp basic concepts only reinforces my mindset that you cannot hope ever to grasp (empirical science, experimentation, equations, simulations, mathematics and logic and "many books" on the subject of physics, philosophy, theology, economics, biology, psychology, and more... for my "many truths" and my promotion of a broader, less biased, and more realistic view of the world.)

You're not so fucking smart that you're able to rise above basic definitions of words. Unfortunately your inability to understand these core tenets of our reality is how I'm more and more sure that you will never be able to comprehend the many different topics you like to name drop like a Kardashian on the red carpet. Your argument isn't even with me anymore, it's with Webster Merriam. Truth has a definition, and you don't know that.

@TheMiddleWay I'm sorry was that for me or Webster? I am entirely done with text vomit from you that has so entirely overshot what you can't understand there is most likely no hope for you. You think you've mastered calculus but can't comrehend square roots. You want me to apply the definition of a word, to quantum mechanics and relativity, in order to alter the definition of the word to your liking, so I can help make your case. Nope, I'm good thanks.

Like I said, you are just like trying to nail jello to the wall and you think you're intelligent because you can't understand definitions. Somehow you're so smart you can't get past one simple item because you think that the dictionary doesn't properly apply quantum entanglement or whatever other impressive words you heard on the Big Bang Theory to its definition. M'kay, genius. Maybe go back to whatever mathematical theorem you've been working on and solve interstellar travel because you're not doing any good here.

@TheMiddleWay It doesn't actually contradict what I've said, remember this:

truth - noun

  1. the quality or state of being true.
  2. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
  3. a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

What you're talking about is the THIRD DEFINITION. What you're talking about is specifically addressed. The first two have NOTHING to do with perception which is your huge fucking hangup, but the third does. The problem is that you seem to think that perception (definition #3) overrides definitions 1 & 2, which it does not. Are we done here?

@TheMiddleWay I'm constantly amazed how anyone can say so much and prove so little. #3 states "accepted as true" which implies perception of an outside viewer whereas #1 & #2 do not. This is what I mean when I say you miss the most basic of concepts. There are fundamentals of knowledge and understanding that you have passed right by with the allure of feeling intelligent compared to others on the internet. Everything I've read from you is a circular and assumptive argument that you keep on repeating based on a conclusion you've used to base your entire case on. The painful thing is that you don't see it, and think you're making a case by showing me a meme for the umpteenth time. Your example showing me that things can contradict doesn't prove that there are multiple truths, it once again proves that you don't understand what the truth is.

@TheMiddleWay I'm constantly amazed how anyone can say so much and prove so little. #3 states "accepted as true" which implies perception of an outside viewer whereas #1 & #2 do not. This is what I mean when I say you miss the most basic of concepts. There are fundamentals of knowledge and understanding that you have passed right by with the allure of feeling intelligent compared to others on the internet. Everything I've read from you is a circular and assumptive argument that you keep on repeating based on a conclusion you've used to base your entire case on. The painful thing is that you don't see it, and think you're making a case by showing me a meme for the umpteenth time. Your example showing me that things can contradict doesn't prove that there are multiple truths, it once again proves that you don't understand what the truth is.

@TheMiddleWay Yep, that must be it.

2

You've got it backwards: there should be some kind of standard(s) in place that must be met before people can become parents.

As to voting, I respect the spirit of what you're saying, but not the letter. As with many things, it think the appropriate strategy does not involve restriction or force, but education and encouragement.

I'm going to suggest here the same thing I always suggest (as per my responses to a somewhat recent post about hate speech, and goodness knows what else): teach critical thinking, early and often. Let there be no way for a citizen to reach voting age without--at the very least--having been exposed to the philosophy and techniques of taking responsibility for one's own knowledge, thinking, values, choices, etc.

Not everyone is going to get it. Not everyone is going to care. Not everyone is going to use their mental powers for good. But the benefits, across the board, would be immeasurable--for individuals and society. So many problems could be ameliorated this way.

TL;DR: don't restrict the bad stuff out--educate the good stuff in.

I like your premise. My concern about education is that brainwashing is generally viewed as education. If people were taught to think critically from early on, I would certainly have far less concern about the way people vote, even the young people. Unfortunately, the opposite tends to happen.

I find it interesting that you would defend people's right to vote and yet espouse the idea of limiting people's ability to have children. To do so places limitations on what is done with their body. If voting is a right that people value so highly, why would anyone consider it acceptable to dictate a person's choices about their body and their natural ability to procreate? Don't restrict the bad stuff . . .?

@Meili yeah, that occurred on me too and I wondered if you'd zero in on that. That was offered up kind of facetiously. It's one of those things that I actually think you have to treat basically the same way: give everyone as much of the tools to succeed as you possibly can, make laws/rules only when and where you absolutely have to, and hope for the best. I'm a liberty over security (when the two are in opposition) person.

There may come a day when other considerations take precedence over this personal liberty--e.g. overpopulation-driven 1- or 2-child(ren)-only mandates. That's the only real scenario I can envision in which I would support curtailing liberty to procreate: when there is a demonstrably clear and present danger to society as a whole. And I doubt such a thing would ever become "demonstrably clear", so I'm not worried about it happening.

I think it would be far more realistic, effective, and consistent with American (or other) values to push evidence-based education and offer incentives (like tax breaks for having no or less kids, or fostering and/or adopting). In a better world, I'd like to see people required to adopt/foster already living orphans before making more humans--but I know how garbage and genetically self-obsessed people are and I think that would just lead to more abuse and generations of psychologically wounded people, so...

As to the education piece, you have an excellent point there, and I thank you for bringing that to my attention. I tend to think of critical thinking as a panacea; honestly, as i'm writing this, I'm having a hard time coming up with any way that true critical thinking training can be subverted--by its very nature, it's basically anti-subversion. With critical thinking, I think the problem is getting it implemented at all, because it would threaten the powers-that-be--in politics, religion, any authority, business, even education itself. So I reckon it would be not exactly easy to get off the ground, or implemented widely.

But I am in agreement that education in general can be subverted for nefarious ends (e.g. creationism in schools, abstinence-only sex ed : puke: ) and I'm not sure what the short-term fix for that is. (I'm more of a big-picture thinker, generally, so i tend to visualize how things would look after at least one generation.). It's easy enough to say "stick to evidence-based protocols"--but these days we have climate-change denial, denigration of expertise, anti-intellectualism, selection of facts, echo chambers...and the only thing I can think of to combat this kind of tide is to teach the young ones better. That's all I got.

4

You bet I think you're WAY off base.
I have no trust for anyone who offers ANY "standards", beyond the established Constitutional ones, for voting eligibility. They usually have an agenda, and it's usually exclusionary. You've made it clear that your "standards" would be exclusionary based on what YOU believe everyone's goals should be.

Everyone votes their own self-interests. It's insane to suggest that they be "filtered out". How the hell would you even propose that be done?

"I would suggest requiring people to be parents before they can vote. Only allow people to vote who have parented a child for at least five years. While it's not perfect, those people will typically be more responsible, less self-centered, more concerned about the future of their country, and less persuaded by emotional arguments."

I think it is thoroughly fucked up to even suggest that anyone who isn't a parent should not be permitted to vote. It's even more fucked up to think that someone who has been a parent has better "judgment" than someone who hasn't been. What in the actual fuck?

How dare you suggest that anyone's Constitutional rights be subject to such arbitrary "standards"? How un-American!

And you actually had the unmitigated gall to say (in another post) that I had a
"dismal point of view"???? Just because you don't like how other people vote, does NOT give you the right to suggest that they have their rights taken from them.

Your "suggestion" is thoroughly rejected. Shame on you for putting it forth in the first place.

Ah, seems I've sparked my first antagonistic troll follower on this site. And I haven't even reached level 7 yet.

@Meili You've "sparked" nothing. I was simply responding to a really BAD idea.

@KKGator I may be mistaken but all the hallmarks are here.

@Meili You are mistaken. There are no "hallmarks". I might be antagonistic, but I'm far from a "troll", nor am I one of your "followers". If I see bad ideas, like yours, I say something.

4

I believe every citizen should be automatically eligible to vote.

MsAl Level 8 Nov 6, 2018
5

Yes, you are off base. Voting is a constitutional right, and is not to be impeded. Allowing any arbitrary limitation on that right invites th advancement of authoritarian governmeent. I wish that some people would not vote in a reactionary or racist pattern, but I would NEVER attempt to limit ANYONE's right to vote.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:217006
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.