One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The high cost of low information v**ers
May 1, 2013 07:10:54   #
OPP Newsletter
 
http://legali**********n.com/2013/04/the-high-cost-of-low-information-v**ers/

Reply
May 1, 2013 09:17:14   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
I have a better example: The re e******n of Obama, and most of Congress. Who was it who defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Take your own survey; ask people for a synapsis (you'll probably have to tell them what that means) of "American Idol," or "Dancing With the Stars," or wh**ever those possessed of room temperature IQs watch these days, or ask for an update on which celebrity du jour is going through rehab/relapse/divorce/reconciliation (take your pick). Chances are you'll get an update. Then, just for laughs, ask them how their Congressmen and Senators v**ed last week. Ask them to name their Congressmen and Senators. I noticed you're not laughing.

Reply
May 2, 2013 19:40:01   #
woodarch
 
Wired magazine had an article a year ago about delegate v**ers similar to our requirement for jury duty. People would be selected at random and need ro meet specific requirements, but they would be sequestered and would hear arguments on both sides of a law, or arguments from canidates. The idea was to force informed v****g. Obviously the majority of people v**ers, v**e straight party lines, v**e name recognition, (think Jesse Jackson Jr) or v**e what others tell them to v**e with peer pressure without ever researching both sides of an argument.
I say r******r to v**e required, with ID, and with proof of intellect to actually make an informed decision. If you can't answer a questionnaire about who or what you are v****g on, you don't get to v**e.

Reply
May 2, 2013 22:58:29   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
You know, in the pre 14th Amendment United States, there were requirements and conditions to v**e. some of them were somewhat unfair, such as refusing women, b****s, and Indians the right to v**e. There are, quite frankly, some things I would like to see changed. If you cannot speak English, you cannot v**e. If you cannot read, you can't v**e. This may be unpopular, but I would return the v****g age to 21, unless the v**er is serving in the military. The original rationale behind lowering the v****g age to 18 was during the Vietnam War, when 18 year olds were being drafted. Fine. If you are active duty military or a vet, and you are under 21, YOU can v**e. I base this on some of the stupid, stupid 18 year old v**ers I have seen. Quite frankly, I think it's a mistake to allow many 18 year olds to serve in the military also. Not all, but a fairish number. I v**ed at 18. At 22, after military service, and being "on my own" for several years, I was amazed and ashamed of my stupidity in the v****g booth while a teenager exercising my franchise for the first time. Low information v**ers carry both foreseeable and unforeseen consequences.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.