No not exactly but it’s certainly not based on their politics.

No but it is based on the person's principles. Which I think is at least better than because of how they look or what their skin color is.

Maybe because it's racist and insane to pick the leader of the free world based on skin color!!

It works for Oprah.

young, air headed, confident, self involved young person

Doesn't "young person" equal "air headed, confident, self involved"?

They are thinking in idealism.

I see that as an increasingly prevalent problem on all sides.

"If you aren't a liberal by the age of 24, you don't have a heart. If you aren't a conservative by age 40, you don't have a brain."

I've always heard it attributed to Winston Churchill, but The Churchill Centre disagrees [link].

churchhill flunked out of almost every class he was in. barely getting a passing grade for school and college.

These are the kind of people choosing our next president . . .


marriedtothesea.com

I'm all for requiring a passing grade in a basic civics and literacy test being administered to people wishing to vote

That doesn't work. Liberals are usually very good at those subjects. It's the "real life" they cannot cope with.

I would prefer a system in which voting costs money. Charge voters 200 bucks for each election.

And before anybody cries "disenfranchisement", I will remind everyone that looking for a job and receiving money for work is NOT illegal.

And if that isn't an option, just add the 200 bucks to the handout programmes. The "poor" (defined as those unfortunate people who live in the luxury provided only by a few western countries without working for it) can then decide whether they want to vote or spend the money on something else.

In fact, we could just give every voter 600 bucks a year every year to cover all elections. That way everyone who cares, can vote.

Maybe the entire thing could replace the social security system. Charge 2000 dollars for each election and give 6000 dollars every year to every voter. Every voter can then decide whether to live off free money (6000 dollars) or whether to get a vote in where the money comes from.

maybe a good idea but change it to you get the money when you go into vote. ie when you vote you get 6000 dollars for doing so.


that way you will get more people to vote.

Charge voters 200 bucks for each election

SCOTUS has stuck down poll taxes.  Regardless of the merits of the idea, it will never happen here.

Doesn't "young person" equal "air headed, confident, self involved"?

If it does that I guess I was never a young person.  I remember when I felt a huge responsibility when voting for the first time.  I felt I should either learn about the issues from every side I could and where the nominees stood on the issues or I should not vote and leave the decision making up to those who had.  Maybe I was old for my age.  Maybe that's why I still don't understand the "young people" like the one I referred to here.

It is a pity that dumb people are allowed to vote.  But if they weren't allowed, there'd be no Democratic party.

I mean, look who their candidates are, what a joke.

A 1-term senator who's got less experience than Dan Quayle that only has a shot because of his skin color.

The wife of a former President who's a 1-term senator who's done nothing of consequence.

And a former trial-lawyer, ambulance chaser who has no concept of how the real world works because the totality of his experience in economics comes from scamming courts to confiscate money from the people who actually do real work.

While I am no fan of all the Republican candidates, the contrast in principles, experience, and competence is pretty stark.  When was the last time the Democrats put someone decent up? You know, someone's whose real world experience wasn't being a freaking lawyer. 

i am sorry but i think the most important thing is to get people to understand. that voting is the most important thing a citizen can do for their country.

understanding what they are voting about is close behind that.

Oddly enough, the DNC's best qualified candidate is probably Bill Richardson. He barely made a blip on the radar screen.

I'm starting to think he's really running for Veep, though.

I really hope he is chosen as the Veep candidate. He'd be a great running mate, far as I'm concerned.

understanding what they are voting about is close behind that.

You couldn't be more wrong!  Being and uninformed voter is doing your country a disservice.  Why on earth would it be a good thing to vote without understanding what you're voting about?!

no first you have to get people use to the idea of voting. fewer than 50% of the voting population votes during a presidential election. and only about 25% vote otherwise. you have to get people use to the idea of voting.


some of these non voters will never vote because they are lazy. but most i think do not vote because they feel that they are uninformed and people like you keep telling them not to vote unless they get informed. we now have the web, how many people like you are trying to get non bias information about candidates and programs to these people.

so people like you need to either to stop telling people they can't vote because they are to stupid or help to educate them.

if i knew what to do i would do it. and if i had the money to run a real website to do that.

I'd rather have the illiterate masses NOT vote, danny boy. The more we let the idiots vote, the more stupid this country becomes - until it becomes a popularity pissing match, not unlike what we see these days with "Obama girl" and "Giuliani girl" having more sway over dumbass voters than actual stances and beliefs.

and the fewer that vote the more in empowered the politicians are.

If you aren't a liberal by the age of 24, you don't have a heart. If you aren't a conservative by age 40, you don't have a brain."

I'm not quite sure but I thought I read that phrase in Bernard Goldberg's Crazies to the left of me book. The few pages I read anyways.

OK, according to this page Link it was Churchill who said it LW.

Yeah, but that was some random poster on some random site (who was ill-informed). If you read Gene's reply in #29, the Churchill Centre (people who are paid to know these things) disagrees. So for what it's worth . . .

Why is it a good thing for people to vote if they don't undersatnd what they're voting on?

some of these non voters will never vote because they are lazy. but most i think do not vote because they feel that they are uninformed and people like you keep telling them not to vote unless they get informed.

What's keeping them from being informed?  We live in a world where information is everywhere.  Anyone can go to a public library and look things up in any language they need on a computer for free.  I'm not telling people how to vote or they don't have the right but I certainly stand by my statement that it is far worse to vote when you are uninformed than to not vote at all.  Political camps have way more power over those who don't inform themselves than those that do.

If you can't understand the importance of being an informed voter, you aren't worth conversing with anyway.  You are the kind of person that I'm afraid of.  I wouldn't want you to drive a car without proper instruction.  I certainly don't want you deciding who the leader of the free world is without any homework being done about the issues and where each nominee stands on them.  The person has to do more than look good and sound good.  They need to do more than have celebrity friends.  They need to have credentials.  They need to be firm on topics.  I have no problem with people forming different opinions of different nominees based on differing values.  As long as it is an informed opinion!

 

the info is not readily available.

the info is not readily available.

Bull flop!  Like I said, absolutely anyone can go to a public library and, even if they don't know how to use a computer, they can ask a librarian how to google each nominee.  I had no idea where the nominees stood on issues, so you know what I did?  I got on google and typed "Obama on the issues"..."Huckabee on the issues" etc.

What is your definition of readily available?

Do you swallow your tongue if you're not actively concentrating on not doing so?