2006-08-04 08:18:03 · 17 answers · asked by ABI 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We have eligibilty criteria for everything. We have to pass a test and have to face an interview before we can get a job. Even for a small job we have to pass a minimum qualification and eligibility test. Why don't we have a test and qualification criteria for those who govern the nation.
By ELIGIBLE I mean how to filter out the eligible and then select the best among equals. History has taught us that ELIGIBILITY criteria can not be based on Money, Color, race,land,caste(specific to India) or physical appearance. Then what should be the eligibility criteria?
We have enough good people but how can we select an Abraham Lincoln as president,a Mahatma Gandhi as advisor to the president and a Martin Luther King as Secretary for Home?
2006-08-04 09:25:17 · update #1
While universal sufferage has its risks (you can certainly fool some of the people all of the time), in the end, I prefer to take these risks than to place power in the hands of a "chosen" few. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.
2006-08-04 08:27:13 · answer #1 · answered by just♪wondering 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is irrelevant, because:
We do not live in a democracy!
The candidates we can vote for are SELECTED by the parties and the special interests who own those parties specifically to NOT CHANGE their status quo. So, whether you pick the republican, or the republican-lite "Democrat", you still won't get REAL change. They don't work for US anymore!
What WE ALL need to be asking is why don't HONEST people run for office? Why do you have to be such a lying douchebag to succeed in politics? Why didn't we have GREEN energy under Clinton? Al Gore had power then, but he didn't do anything. WHY NOT? get my drift?
Voting is only 1 day of the battle to fix America. If you go home the next day and veg-out again, NOTHING GETS BETTER. Our country is ****** up because WE are lazy, apathetic, and ignorant to what our EMPLOYEES (government) are doing.
WE have to be active in our government and RUN ourselves.
This will solve more than changing who's eligible to vote.
2006-08-04 15:45:28 · answer #2 · answered by kevin g 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Eligible people you mean those that are educated?
Back 18th, 19th century when governments were moving more towards a "democracy" where common people could start to take part in their government and how it was run it was only limited to that certain "eligible" people, meaning those that owned property, or had a certain amound of edcuation you could say.
The democracy we have in the US is the longest, most successful democracy in the history of the world. I say we keep what we've got.
2006-08-04 15:25:52 · answer #3 · answered by K. V 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —
2006-08-04 15:22:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What part of CITIZEN don't you understand?
Only CITIZENS are allowed to vote anyway!
Why hate on immigrants? I really hate to remind you, but if it weren't for immigrants, we wouldn't have a nation at all!
Our forefathers were IMMIGRANTS!
Immigrants BUILT THIS NATION, it's from their BLOOD, SWEAT and TEARS we even have a country!
Learn some actual history before you go tearing the Statue of Liberty down with your bare hands Don Quixote!
2006-08-04 15:23:28 · answer #5 · answered by DEATH 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Confining political power in an "eligible" group destroys any sense of actual representation. You're just advocating another bastardized authoritarian political structure. To hell with you Limbaugh-parrots.
2006-08-04 15:22:10 · answer #6 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Explain what the heck you are talking about
WHO IS ELIGIBLE?
Well, I saw your answer. Sounds like a master race. Somebody tried that it didn't work out to well. No matter how you cut it is discrimination.
2006-08-04 15:38:14 · answer #7 · answered by Thomas S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who defines "eligible"? In the past eligible has excluded blacks, women, asians, etc.
2006-08-04 15:21:40 · answer #8 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nah... doesn't have a cool ring to it.
Like the first guy said, its kinda implied... if you don't follow the rules of our club, you're not a member.
Though some people want that changed...
2006-08-04 15:22:29 · answer #9 · answered by John H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who exactly are the eligible you are referring to?
2006-08-04 15:22:27 · answer #10 · answered by X's Mommy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋