No. Informed voters are the best voters.
2006-08-08 11:21:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by lighthouse 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Like gokart121, I'd like to know what exactly is the problem this time? Constitutional amendments have been enacted to guarantee equal voting rights regardless of race, sex, age (at least 18) and equal voting rights to vote in federal elections even if one has not paid any kind of tax or fee. Then the Supreme Court obliterated the effect of 3 out of 4 of these amendments by proclaiming that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th guarantees equal voting rights even in other circumstances. So what else is there to do (and do we even have any other choices)?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. How about convicted felons and non-citizens? Are they who we are supposed to be worried about now?
2006-08-08 11:49:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a horrible system. The only system that is worse is every
other system...
Who would you exclude and how?
I've often thought that it would be nice to setup a system of
voting where some persons got more of a vote depending
on whether the subject at hand effected them more.
For instance, if I am citizen of a town voting on whether a natural
gas company should be allowed to put a terminal on the town's
shore, I might have 2 votes.
If I live in the town next to the above town, maybe I should have
one vote. I am directly effected because tankers will have to
use my waters to get to the terminal, but not as effected
because I won't have to put up with the extra roads and
traffic, etc.
However, WHO DECIDES WHO GETS WHAT VOTES?
Making the decisions about who gets what vote turns out to
be extremely contraversial.
In the above example, the town next-door got no vote, but
they sure did put ads in the local paper "explaining" their
views!
2006-08-08 11:25:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Elana 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Only if you uphold "Everyone is created equally."
When we can concieve and base our ideas on true equality, the world might just become the happiest place in the universe.
Equality unfortunetly removes the ideology of having a ruling class and so they (the "elite") will always be the ones who'll fight it the most.
Inequality is ignorantly accepted as the norm.
People seem to all to easily forget that every single person on this planet is a living, breathing human being.
2006-08-08 12:09:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Aurred 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
You speaking in regards to the moronic UN ingredient? the U. S. already has rights and protections for the disabled that exceed the UN treaty. And the UN treaty does not unquestionably help as much as you think of it does. Making the emotional and intelligence-unfastened declare that we voted against equivalent rights for the disabled is an outright lie and a smear. The UN isn't the source of all solid - in certainty, lots of what it pushes is undesirable for freedom and prosperity.
2016-09-29 01:33:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by catherine 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes
but the voting age should be changed to 14 because teens know who to vote for and understand the concepts after all we will be the ones having to deal witht that president when we become 18
2006-08-08 11:22:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, women should only get a half vote, because they vote for looks instead of intelligence.
2006-08-08 11:20:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
All legal Americans should have the right to vote, unless you have a criminal record.
2006-08-08 11:21:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by jackie 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course....if and when people choose to exercise their right to vote....and take it seriously.....oh I forgot....the trend in this country is to be a sideline heckler with half the facts......
2006-08-10 03:45:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by chico2149 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why would they not be a good idea?
2006-08-08 12:00:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋