Should voting be weighted by testing knowledge beforehand?

Jon

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#1
#1
Person A knows nothing about what is going on in their country. Person B has plenty of understanding. Should each have an equal influence regarding the weight of their vote, or should the more knowledgeable have a greater say?
 
T

The_Doc_Man

Founding Member
#2
#2
In the USA, we usually try to apply the rule that you have to have skin in the game. To vote, you generally must be a properly registered citizen. There are some exceptions for local-issue elections, but to vote for the presidency and Congress, you need to be a citizen.

We do not make the distinction of being smart or stupid as voting criteria. Our symbol of justice is blind - she cannot see that you are a total chowderhead because to us, "all Men are created equal." Therefore, we CANNOT make the claim that person X shouldn't be voting because they are dumber than a box of rusty garden tools. We don't KNOW that the dumb cluck's idea is worse than the genius, often because the issues involved in voting are not based on logic anyway, but on preferences.
 
Bee

Bee

Founding Member
#3
#3
Nope. That's democracy. If you limit voting to people who have the interest or intellect, then that's a form of dictatorship - possibly even facism.
 
Jon

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#4
#4
You might be right Bee. How about a voting system where the poor and underprivileged have greater weight applied to their vote, to level the field?
 
T

The_Doc_Man

Founding Member
#5
#5
Any attempt to level the playing field based on ability develops a potential source of unrest. The French and Russians overthrew egalitarian governments one or more centuries ago. I am glad to say that all of the Deep South (USA) states have finally given up on things like the poll tax as a way to weed out impoverished voters. They still want proof of citizenship and/or residency, and there I don't think you can blame them. Too many illegal aliens would try to vote if you didn't have SOME type of citizenship checks. However, anything other than "one man, one vote" is an attempt to lift the blindfold from blind justice. If you have a truly democratic government or a democratic republic, you need to prevent vote-weighting.
 
Bee

Bee

Founding Member
#6
#6
Vote rigging is interesting, Doc. Here we don't ask for voter ID because we know election fraud is both very low and very difficult to pull off. However, there are elections coming up on 2nd May and 8 districts are trialling a no ID/no vote system. Already people are up in arms because they believe they will be disadvantaged and it's seen as gaming the system somehow to prevent certain people (ie those poor enough not to have a passport or driving license) from voting.
 
T

The_Doc_Man

Founding Member
#8
#8
For us it is supposed to be level but there have been a few confirmed cases of not so level. Some years ago in the city of Chicago, some dead voters were confirmed to have gotten up from their graves to vote for a particular mayoral election. At least that's the only rational explanation, since we KNOW there were no voters who voted illegally. The Democrats said so.
 
T

The_Doc_Man

Founding Member
#10
#10
Bee, the problem is that the liberal Democrats see every attempt at tightening up election laws as an attack on their typically low-turnout disaffected voter base. Personally I don't see a problem with requiring proof of citizenship but the liberals treat it like it would be the end of the world. In the final analysis, with the USA polarized as it is, I'm surprised when ANYTHING gets resolved.
 
Bee

Bee

Founding Member
#11
#11
There are other ways to deal with election fraud without requiring proof of ID. As I said, voter fraud in the UK is negligible and we don't require ID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top