As it stands, anyone who is old enough to vote is automatically allowed to do so provided they aren't insane or a criminal, but many people don't bother to exercise this right. If one had to actively serve or benefit society in some way in order to earn the right to vote, would that eradicate the apathy? Would people really fight for the issues they care about instead of sitting at home and complaining?
How would a government even decide whether a citizen had earned the right to vote? Should they pass an exam? Do some community service?
2007-03-03 09:11:30 · 15 answers · asked by Mike Fields 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
only folks who EARN their living should be able to vote. no welfare mamas.
2007-03-03 09:15:39 · answer #1 · answered by patriot07 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, that's not a bad idea, but it's easily subject to abuse, as we had in Florida in '04 and Ohio as well.
And as for an exam, if the current administration designed it, i'm sure the test questions would be taken from Hannity and Limp-baugh ;-)
I'd rather go the other way.
Voting is not only a priviledge, it's a responsiblity. So here's an idea that will, I'm sure, go over like a Gospel choir at a KKK meeting.
I propose we institute a reverse voting tax. 5% of the unadjusted gross income. At the polling place, you would receive a receipt to be attached to your personal income tax to remove this tax.
There would have to be exemptions for various causes but that could be worked out.There would also be penalties for states that obstruct the voting process, with possible removal of the governor if the violations are blatant.
The money could be apportioned for things like Social Security, education, infrastructure, anything that is currently underfunded.
You still have the choice to vote or not. You just have to pay for your conduct.
Radical, I know, but I'm really enraged by those who don't vote, and then spend their time complaining about their elected representatives.
I'd also add a "no vote button" for people who feel the choices offered are inadequate. This is an idea that will really get the politicians stirred up. Don't look for it in our lifetimes.
2007-03-03 18:06:39 · answer #2 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People who are US citizens who have achieved the required age should be allowed to vote. Linking community service to the franchise seems somewhat un-American to me. It would be a form of poll-tax that was outlawed years ago. I also have the perfect right not to vote if I find neither candidate agreeable to my positions. It is a form of protest that should remain an available. The fact that people too lazy or disinterested in the world around don't vote just makes my vote all the more powerful
2007-03-03 17:26:39 · answer #3 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
People should have to take a test that shows they know what the candidates stand for. I knew a guy who voted for a politician just because he liked her lips. (She was actually a lesbian and he didn't even know it!). He didn't care that she was for universal health care, equal rights for gay couples and voted against Patriot Act. After the election we told him about her and he got so sick! He now studies up on who he votes for! Yes...A test is the way to go. No Pass, No Vote.
2007-03-03 17:28:37 · answer #4 · answered by crabby_wabby 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In a way it does have to be earned. Must be an American but if you are for the CDP (communist Democratic Party) then no there should not be that way they can make the stupid, incompetent and criminals feel important too.
2007-03-03 18:18:35 · answer #5 · answered by AFIN 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the USA there actually is no federal "right to vote".
Voting is a state right but no mechanism in the constitution gives voting priviledges for nationwide office.
2007-03-03 17:19:41 · answer #6 · answered by zaphodsclone 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would make it a privelege, not a right. Hey, you make a valid point, perehaps we should revert back to property owners as we were in the beginning. Property owners aren't likely to be voting away their tax dollars.
2007-03-03 18:24:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not to mention the way the widespread apathy dilutes and diminishes the necessity for meaningful debate. Why debate when the candidate can challenge for coolest drinking buddy...
Ideally there would be a test. IMO
2007-03-03 17:18:27 · answer #8 · answered by Mark P 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I believe ANYONE who pays taxes, Or get income from the Goverment should be the only ones to Vote!!!
REGARDLESS THERE AGE!!!
If someone is 16 but pays taxes because they work...Then I believe they should have the right to where there money goes...There for...Should be able to vote
I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT...E-MAIL IF YOU HAVE A ISSUE ON IT!!!
2007-03-03 17:56:04 · answer #9 · answered by `~Its love~` 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
People who are on any sort of welfare program should not be alowed to vote. Anyone who depends on the government for any part of their income, any part of their rent, any part of their sustenance, any part of their medical care, should not be allowed to vote. Period.
People should be at least 21 years of age, literate (or dislexic or blind with a Doctors note or equivalent proof), a citizen, with no convictions for sex crimes.
2007-03-03 17:23:49 · answer #10 · answered by Auntie DeLuvienne 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yeah. You should have to be a White, English-speaking male, landowner to vote.
I am being sarcastic, but that would be the next step according to your reasons. Heaven help me for using a slippery slope fallacy...
2007-03-03 17:23:38 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋