Take away voting rights?

Question

Why do people think giving everyone the right to vote is a good idea? Socrates (who is smarter than you I might point out) was derisive of democracy, calling it nothing more than mob rule. Considering how many people vote without truly knowing the issues, I think it's hurting America more than it's helping. I'd rather less people vote who actually know the issues than a great deal of idiots vote for another idiot (see: 2004 and 2000 elections). Your thoughts on this?

*EDIT*

A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding the question. I don't mean completely take away the right to vote. Just bar idiots from voting. Heck, I'll even be content with potential voters having to pass a test concerning current issues before they're allowed to vote.

Answer 1

If you place requirements, such as tests, this also provide lot of ways for corrupted officials to exploit it. There is always someone smarter than you are. How would you feel if you are excluded because there are those who are smarter than you?
How would you draw that line on whether you know the issue or not? What if you didn't know anything about minium wages, but you're social security expert? You're only allowed to vote on issues you know? How would you enforce that?

What if you go to voting booth and someone ask you 'what's the minimum wage in Ohio?' And you have no answer, so they kick you out.

There is more benefit than harm in our voting rights law. Socrates's idea is highly idealitic way of thinking how voting can be improved. But it is not very practical in real world. There are lot of philosphy, scholarly work on democracy. We don't implement all of them.

It is very arogant to think that we can improve the way we vote by selecting 'smart' people who know things. It just can't be done.

Trust me when I say this. There are lot of law makers (who are smarter than you I might point out) who think that sort of restrictions on voting right is bad idea.




I hope you see that doing something like what you suggest will take immense men power, money, resources. We currently have volunteer workers who work during elections. Voting can be complicated as it is. Adding requirement tests would make things even more frustrating and won't do much good. Not to mention debate people will have whether questions are racially biased, sexists...etc.

Just not practical. I'm pretty sure some people in this world would consider you an idiot.

What if a scientist come up to you and say 'you can't vote because you've never done research in global warming and global warming is big issue in presidential race.'

Answer 2

Socrates lived in a different time. A true Democracy may be mob rule, but the United States is not anywhere near mob rule. In order for mob rule to take effect the entire mob must take part. In the last election 35% of eligible voters actually did their part and voted.

Even Socrates would say that 35% is not the majority. Not knowing the issues is definitely a problem, but it is not the only one, and it is certainly not the reason for our current mess. If every eligible voter voted for what ever then it could make a change.

The change would not occur directly, but over time the politicians would notice that more people are voting and that they are voting for different issues. This will cause change.

It may not stop stupid people from voting, but it might create an environment in which every stupid person has a voice, as opposed to only 35% of stupid people.

Get registered and get to the polls in 2008. Voice your opinion by hitting a button or pushing a chad. Power to the People!

Answer 3

I absolutely agree. I see this great push to get people registered to vote. Many of these people would never register or vote because they don't care or won't take the time. So making it easy is not a good solution to voter apathy. Those citizens that will take the time to learn the issues will take the time to register and vote. And then there are all those who vote for all the wrong reasons. I have problems with the two party system and the whole set up. And why does my vote not count if I don't agree with the majority in my area? And what do you do if you have two idiots running for office? But all in all I don't want a group of people setting all the rules for all the people. Oh yea. . .that's the supreme court. . .

Answer 4

u know what i understand what u r saying. i agree that many potential voters are not aware of the issues this country faces yet people are gonna say we can vote for whoevr the hell we want. i'm pretty sure they would respond that way and that would only decrease the voters that are actually atking the time to go out and vote. Ur argument has lots of pros and cons but i think it would be nice if voters would be made more aware of the issues the country faces.

Answer 5

But then does it become a dictorial government?

If it's broken and you don't have anything to replace it with, keep up with the broken till you get a better idea.

Edit:

But how do you quantify stupidity? The guy who doesn't know that cells have DNA, but can run a small business just fine, or someone who can tell you the human genome, but has the social interaction skills of a large rock? And who will decide what are the important current news?

Answer 6

Putting restrictions on voting is a slippery slope. Put one on, others will want to add more; the line where we should stop would be drawn in the sand. Eventually the only people that could vote would be the people that are in power right now and those that voted for them. After all they (politicians and whom they represent) vote for what helps them, not hurts them.

Answer 7

well, if you take away voting rights, you take away democracy. and if you are ever charged with a felony, you lose your voting rights anyways.

but if you are using the 2004 and 2000 elections as a standard, id have to say that maybe your idea of where america should go differ from a great number of people, maybe half, so if you think that way then maybe you dont necessarly believe in democracy but dont want to say it that way.

Answer 8

good question! i like the idea of testing voters. also the wording in the elections is tricky. in Ohio alot of people who voted on the smoking ban voted wrongly because of the wording. i think if your on welfare food stamps wic or any other govt assistance and don't pay taxes [social security] excluded then you should not be able to vote. the united states citizens who tow the line for those people should be able to make their decisions for those people since were taking care of them anyways. the working people in this country should decide who should represent this country. i know it sounds radical but it makes sense.

Answer 9

People must undergo examinations about their political rights and the intricacies of government to determine who can vote so that those that are just being rigged cannot vote.

Answer 10

Well... tell me - what would keep YOU from being the first person denied the right to vote based on someone else's view of you?

Personally - I'm not interested in living in a Dictatorship.

I cherish my right to vote.

Let there be peace.