Most people can't even manage their own lives; why should we think they can manage themselves collectively?
I like the way the ancient Greeks did it, the original democracy. You needed to be from a wealthy family, which is not the best form of selection in and of itself, but it made sure these people had a good background and were exposed to some good education before.
Early Americans had pretty much the same type of system to a lesser degree before it degenerated into what we know today.
What should be the minimum qualifications for voting?
2007-02-03 05:36:04 · 17 answers · asked by Dr. Daniel 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes- go back to the original 25 years old and land owner. Why should some homeless guy get to vote on how to spend money he did not contribute?
2007-02-03 05:39:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
We should have a test and also people who work for the government or derive more then 10% of there income from government spending should not be allowed to vote . This means all the services we currently allow government to provide should be prohibited from voting . Everyone involved in defense contracting and the workers .
People I know hated Clinton for slashing funds to be spent on murder (defense spending ) and love Bush no matter what .If he came out tomorrow and wanted everyone to wear blue or go to jail they would applaud . This leaves educated workers who make a product or provide a service the only people who can vote . This is the only way our nation can survive .
If you are not building homes growing food making durable goods or transporting ,storing,and merchandising those goods then sorry you are a parasite on the working mans back that should be removed or limited to how much weight he must carry in addition to providing the basic needs of life for himself and those around him . There is roughly an hour per square foot of a finished space in a home and roughly 28 dollars in materials .This means that everyone in america should own a home .Not some people but all people as a basic need . A house should cost no more then a man can earn in a couple of years . But we charge way to much for this what has no become a privilege reserved for those earning Lets see the average home is 250,000 so the wage needs to be say 80,000 a year . No large group of people make this money except two income families working for the government . When did going to work for the government the nations largest employer by far now happen . You can argue and say it is not but all the services and work is provided to those working for Uncle Sam .
This happened because government was allowed to expand way beyond the control of the people who support it and now those who benefit from it maintain the status quo .
Thats why these people should lose the right to vote .
They vote themselves everything and make the majority pay for it .
2007-02-03 06:20:55 · answer #2 · answered by -----JAFO---- 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes... and let's remember that it was only 36 years ago that the 26th Amendment passed lowering the voting age to 18 from 21.
I think we need to ENFORCE the rules we have in place today... particularly the Citizenship rules !! Otherwise: 18, Citizen, non-felon should be enough.
I'd LIKE to see an educational requirement... the ability to read and comprehend, and also a US History quiz...
2007-02-03 06:04:12 · answer #3 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Forget about wealth. How about, everyone who wants to vote in this country has to pass the same test immigrants have to pass to become citizens. They have to prove that they know the structure of American government and how it works, and have a decent knowledge of the Constitution and its Amendments. They have to know about major events in American history, be able to pass a quiz on current foreign policy, and identify where Earth falls in numerical order in our solar system, counting out from our sun. That ought to eliminate a lot of 'em.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blinstst_new.htm
2007-02-03 05:53:10 · answer #4 · answered by functionary01 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In order to be allowed to vote, a potential voter should have to at least name an issue. I don't care what his/her opinion of that issue is, only that they can at least name one. I'm sooooooo tired of watching people being interviewd after having voted, only to announce they had voted for candidate "X" because "he has nice hair" or some other inanity.
2007-02-03 05:46:37 · answer #5 · answered by Rick N 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
relatively, as this youthful technology grows, (that are quite often democrats) the Conservative Republicans will lose voters, and via a dramatic replace. The elderly would be much less waiting to vote, dropping conservative votes the superb option there. LOL who took this ballot??????????? LOL it relatively is laughable! Our society is popping extra liberal and meaning vote casting developments will stick to.
2016-10-01 09:05:47 · answer #6 · answered by scoggin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There already is!!! The rules are defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Civic books have all of this information if you attended grades 1-12.
2007-02-03 06:19:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe we should reconsider returning to property owners being qualified. Those are the ones who really have a stake in things. Non-property owners are good at spending other peoples money..
2007-02-03 06:03:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Theoretically yes, however, if you could device a means by which a more responsible person could have a greater say in the formulation of the government, it would be great!
2007-02-03 05:42:37 · answer #9 · answered by ZXSpectrumDX!! 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Right now it is perfect. I mean, sure alot of idiots get to vote, but many of the politicians are idiots themselves. It all balances out.
2007-02-03 05:38:17 · answer #10 · answered by Wocka wocka 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋