With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
Original post by alina
Do you think there should be a minimum level of education with regard to current events for a person to be eligible to vote?
If HS really educated us, that would be a good base. But since it doesn't, sometimes I feel like a current events kind of test would prevent some of the politicians from gaining office?
I am referring to some basic understanding of current events, not formal degree education, such as college/university
julybride444
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
That too would be pretty hard to enforce. And, many new citizens are not familiar with the voting system, it takes a little while to understand. Let's not make more limiting laws. Besides, that would certainly bring back thoughts of when blacks couldn't vote unless their grandfathers had voted (and according to law their grandfathers couldn't have voted!).
It would be expensive to enforce too.
I just think the answer would be to invest in our schools and public education programs, so that those going to the voting polls WILL be more educated about public policy issues.
joeslauren
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
you addresses felons.. and that's what i addressed. period. regardless of whether the felony was larceny or murder.. it is a felon. are there different degress of felonies, yes. should they be handled differently? yes. but i am not a law maker so that is not my job. i addressed felons... the blanket of felons.
of course our criminal justice system sucks. everyone knows that, but just bc some get out the very next day bc of the crimes that were commited doesn't mean that the ones who commit the larger scaled crimes should get all their rights back.
Jordan
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
Posted by Sonicstef
The problem you are addressing is the problem that the justice system doesnt punish people fairly. And that i wholeheartedly agree with - but you cant carry your sentiments on that issue into an issue where there are hundreds of thousands of people who are felons but committed no violent act whatsoever.
This I can agree with.
Theresa - you are against Megan's Law? As someone whose close family member was molested by another family member as a child - I support this law. Cause when she bought her house and found out later that the little old man down the street was a (multiple) convicted sex-offender, she freaked out. I can understand why - can you? I know it doesn't erase what happened...but in a way, it is comforting for victims. It's a little piece of vindication - since sex-offenders rcv so little jail time/punishment.
And to clarify, I wasn't attacking you - I posted an opinion and asked for enlightenment. Not for name-calling. I get out enough. I'm educated enough to form my opinions. My opinion is that I don't think murderers or rapists should have equal rights. You didn't specify in your statement that you were talking about non-violent felons. I did.
Ronnie&Theresa
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
Colleen.. I wasn't talking to you!
And I don't have any opinions on Megan's law..
I have family and friends on both sides of the law.. Criminals and I have family who works for the police commissioner...
So I don't have a view point..
But I know someone who commited a crime a long time ago.. Defending someone else.. Went away for ONE year.. Has that felony for the rest of their life.... and by no means are they are criminal.. They did something. PAID.. MOVE on............
I am Done with this bc I will start REALLY saying to people how I feel and I will get banned!
ChristineC68
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
Saying an minimum IQ requirement should be used for voting rights implies that people with diminished capacities should not have a voice.
Sorry, Theresa I didnt realize you were THINKING not serious crimes when you WROTE felonies. I don't think that makes me closed minded or righteous, it just means I am not a mind reader.
We all know the system doesn't work 100% and that's partly due to going to extreme lengths to protect the civil rights of people accused of crimes.
I know several people in law enforcement and they are generally the most cynical of our system because they feel what they do if for nothing a lot of the time.
Lisa Rose
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
before this goes any further,....here is a website for the local NY board of elections. Have you friend call if he/she wants to vote.They will be able to clarify it!!
'Who Can Vote?' You must be a registered voter in order to vote in the general or primary elections. To register, you must be a United States citizen, be 18 years old by the date of the election you want to vote, live at your present address for at least 30 days before an election, not be in jail or on parole for a felony conviction, and not claim the right to vote elsewhere
so if your friend is not on parol then they should be able to vote!!!!
jenny11.9
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
I think it might be a good idea to teach people a little more about voting. At all ages. Perhaps something that can be instituted in grade school - like a class voting day or something, where you have to review current events, make educated decisions based on how you feel about those events, weigh pros and cons, etc. Perhaps if kids got a better sense about the right to vote, they may respect it more as they grow older and not just walk in and vote for anybody.
For adults, maybe it could be as simple as having info on voting at the post office, bank, starbucks, wherever. Just checklists - people that are interested in voting would pick that up and check their level of information before deciding on a candidate. Maybe they'd question some of their decisions and decide to do some more research, reading, etc.
jags77
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
don't you think by testing IQs of potential voters, you are causing an unfair separation among americans? someone who doesn't have as high an IQ as their scientist neighbor may still be more knowledgable of the political world.
i agree w/ the previous posts to encourage voting in young children through the educational system. also- i think people should somehow be encouraged to take a more active interest in politics and the politicians they can vote for.
jenny- just read your post- i agree. i think if this information is easily accessible to people (putting it in starbucks/post offices)- they will be able to make a more informed decision.
i don't think we should take away anyone's right to vote bc that is the most important right americans have. i'm not sure how i feel about murderers/rapists voting after they serve their time. this is a separate topic but i don't think they just be let out of prison ever (depending on situations though- like killing someone in self defense).
michele31
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
Even with the clarification my answer does not change. How can someone else judge my understanding of current events? Do I need to take a test prior to pushing the voting buttons? And what if my opinion is different, is my answer incorrect. In all honestly, 1/2 the time I think politicians don't understand current events at all and just use media gimmacks to pretend like they do. If they understood current events perhaps they would be looking into Iran, Saudi Arabi and Jordon a bit more closely and not focused on our video game/ talk showWar in Iraq. Or let's not even get into the CHOICE issue...talk about a lack of understanding....
Becky
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
I agree with Michele. I still don't think there should be any kind of test. I personally tend to focus in on a few issues that are important to me (taxes, abortion, healthcare, education and welfare) and I gloss over some of the others which I think are dictated more by situations that might come up (foreign affairs, potential appointees), so I wouldn't want to be taking a test about the candidates position on foreign policy. Nor do I want the government to know what my IQ is. I also don't want them monitoring my SATs, LSATs or bar results or anything else about me. Its just none of their business. It gets in the way of privacy laws.
I like Stef's suggestion that if you don't vote you lose it, but I wouldn't like to see it implemented. I just wish people took voting more seriously. Its really sad that people will spout their opinions on how it SHOULD be, but wont do anything about it.
Wendy
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
For those who seemed to take umbrage with my calling the right to vote 'a gift' I was speaking figuratively and not literally. There are many people who do consider it a gift and treat it as something precious, which it is!!!!
As for the lack of female representation in government, I vote for candidates based on the issues, not on the basis of gender. Unfortunately, many of the women who run have very conservative views ie: a woman's right to choice, the death penalty etc., and I am not comfortable voting for them. Much as I would rather see a woman in office if she doesn't share my views she doesn't get my vote.
As for convicted felons..the law is clear. Once they are out of jail and off parole they are able to vote again. Should they really have a voice while they are in prison or finishing out their sentence? No. But once they are done they have just as much right as anyone else.
I stand by what I said before. I do not agree with testing of any kind before allowing someone to vote. It's difficult enoug now to get anyone to vote. Add another requirement and we will never have the chance to have an election decided by more than 50% of the country!
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
this whole debate is moot...b/c it is against the Constitution to prohibit someone for ANY reason (with the exception of serving time - jail or parole - for a felony)
there is NO WAY that Congress will EVER touch the 14th Amendment...this is an amendment that really solidied many of our rights as citizens...
Jenn524
Posted:
Member since
Re: With regard to all the politics discussions on here: Another question EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FIRST MSG
My answer does not change either. I don't feel as if you can give a current event test in order to allow someone to vote. While current events are important they are not the only thing I factor in when voting. I look at the canidates themselves, I think about what the party stands for and what laws might be passed when this person is in office. I think about the history of the country and what each nominated president might do to affect the future of our country. It's more than just what's going on in the world today. And what's important to me may not be important to others, so who am I to judge who other people may want to lead the country? It's the whole basis behind our country. Everyone has the right to vote.
