2007-02-16 03:00:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Yes.
2007-02-16 03:03:50 · answer #1 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure you can think of it as "better judgment" or "better judgment is exactly right"! In my minds eye, the public should be better informed about politics.
Political preference becomes a spur of the moment thing in the voting booth. Most (and I do mean most!) of the people I work with and my friends only give significant thought to politics during elections. Then, all of a sudden they are experts.
When I hear things like; "I'm going to vote democratic all the way because the economy was good when Bill Clinton was in office", or "I'm voting republican because George Bush is the only one concerned about terrorism", it makes my sick! If we had a well informed public who would vote intelligently, I am positive, there would be a constant change in the name plates on congressional and senate doors, until they (politicians) got it right and did the job of representing the people!
2007-02-16 11:19:15 · answer #2 · answered by ggraves1724 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The candidate should have to undergo psychological testing as a requirement and if voted for at least annually while in office. Is the information or lack of that reflects on the government as it should. Not the general public. We can not make sound decisions based solely on information given or misgivin nor on information withheld.
2007-02-16 11:20:17 · answer #3 · answered by bountyhunter101 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously, look what we got as president. All the info was out there, but you know what, that doesn't matter! People vote their pocketbooks, especially Republicans!
See Bush cut the VA Hospitals for the wounded missing limbs from the war! That was the 2nd cut. The first was in 2006 for 100 BILLION!
He did manage to put tax cuts for the wealthy in his budget!
That's what you want, right Repubs? I can tell how much you really support the troops when the rubber meets the road!
2007-02-16 11:10:23 · answer #4 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's plenty of time to look into each candidates background as well as present positions. There are only a handful that are willing to back border security when everyone else seems out to lunch on it. Duncan Hunter seems pretty good so far as does Huckabee even though they don't have mega $$ for campains.
2007-02-16 11:26:32 · answer #5 · answered by spareo1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know people who have gone into a voting booth and just voted straight ticket without having the slightest idea why. They should know what that candidate stands for, not just in word but in deed. How did they vote on key issues and why? That is a lot to ask but I can always dream I guess...............
2007-02-16 11:11:17 · answer #6 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Exhibit A: William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton.
2007-02-16 22:29:04 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES!!!!
I think that too many simply go with the party affiliation, as opposed to what they are talking about doing. Maybe paying attention to what they plan on doing - and then holding them to just that - would be much better than just looking at if there is an (R), (D), or (I) behind their name.
2007-02-16 11:18:55 · answer #8 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure everyone can have better judgment weather or not the exercise it is a different story.
2007-02-16 11:56:31 · answer #9 · answered by Centurion529 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, you should be required to OWN LAND before you can vote.
Why let every moron with a pulse vote?
They will only vote themselves a handout.
2007-02-16 12:17:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋