voting - should there be restrictions?

[Adriac]

Here in America, we have something like the second lowest voter turnout among any democratic state. Iraq had higher turnout than we do.

Make voting harder? Please.

 

[relaxeus]

I think you're going about this the wrong way. Instead of restricting the vote, why not work to make voters more aware? I seriously think we need to stress civics, philosophy, and critical thought in our schools (not to the exclusion of anything else, just as a point of making good citizens who aren't vapid ideologues). We need to encourage adults to remain sharp on these things by offering continuing classes (this is already fairly the case, though I see no particular encouragement to do so) following graduation from high school or University.

This is a totally different thread, but I totally agree with you, except with the "I think your going about this the wrong way" lol.

Perhaps you will disagree...

yeah

...but I do believe that implementation of your ideas would walk a very dangerous road which can easily lead to tyranny.

I disagree, I don't see the danger. Its simple. People must realize that they aren't allowed to vote because they are unqualified to do it, and their voting would undermine the system. Personally, I think that the chances of chaos as many posters are describing are very, very slim.

I'm surprised that there has been no poster is support of trying to change the voting system in order to prevent many bad voters from disrupting the system, and so many opposed to it. Maybe you all are right, but personally I think your wrong lol.

 

[michabo]

Unintelligent people who don't know anything about politics have a very small chance of reaching such a position. Is this fair? No.

You sound like a perfect totalitarian. Or maybe someone that's been blinded by the rhetoric of the US.

The problem of political ignorant voters is not solved by eliminating further rights, but by education. Having a free, competitive media would be a start.

But its the right way to go, because we want as few unqualified people in our governments as possible.

And what would be this qualification?

Are you aware that most good dictators achieved their power through democratic means? It's this well-intentioned, but misguided notion of yours that the best democracy is one in which we remove the electoral process.

If you want a dictatorship, then say so. If you want a democracy, then you don't get it by removing the electorate.

 

[relaxeus]

You sound like a perfect totalitarian. Or maybe someone that's been blinded by the rhetoric of the US.

lol, that's harsh. Stick with the arguments michabo, Im not interested in your insults.

It's this well-intentioned, but misguided notion of yours that the best democracy is one in which we remove the electoral process.

If you want a dictatorship, then say so. If you want a democracy, then you don't get it by removing the electorate.

You musta misread one of my posts because in none of them do I say I want the electorate process removed.

 

[michabo]

You musta misread one of my posts because in none of them do I say I want the electorate process removed.

You have said several times that you want to remove people from the voters list because they don't meet some criteria of yours. If a precedent can be made to remove some people because they are unfit, it is trivial to change that definition of fitness to be, well, whatever you want it to be. All it takes is a majority vote, and that majority gets to keep its majority.

As I said, dictatorships start when a democracy elects to remove their rights. There are many, many examples of this. Hitler and Julius Caeser are classic examples. We can debate whether or not a dictator is better for the country or not (don't take the example of Hitler to show that all dictatorships are bad, it's just an example that many people are familliar with), but they are very different than a democracy. You can't improve democracy by removing the popular voice, even if you disagree. Especially if you disagree.