"We do not need more voters"

from PolMach Forums
Something that a local talk show host (Michael Graham, local to D.C., heard on AM radio), that bears some discussion, and in my mind, bears support:

"WE DO NOT NEED MORE VOTERS"

The host's point, and an important one, is that we don't need just a bunch of idiots all signed up to vote just because they are of legal voting age and are residents of the country.

Before you go and say that it's everyone's right to vote (it is), you should understand that just because someone is entitled to vote, doesn't mean that they should.

For example, there are many that believe that we never landed on the moon and the space program is just a hoax. Should we encourage those people to vote? (Allow them to, sure, encourage them to? are you kidding me?!?!)

There are those that believe that the Arian Nation way of life is the best plan for the country. Should we encourage those people to vote? (It's scary that we even allow that group to vote actually).

There are those that believe that we should do as China has and force population control in this country. Does that sound like a group you really want to have participating heavily in the political system?


Anyway, it's a good topic for discussion. Now tear into it!
politics
2,985 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
My view is simple:

Its a free country and everyone has a right to vote.

So as long as they have not commited a major crime, they should be allowed to vote.
Yes even if they believe that the moon landing was a hoax and aliens are among us.

Hell, half of the current voters are wacko's in my opinion so what would it hurt if the alien believers or the moon landing hoax believers are added to the list. At least some of the hoax believers can give a convincing arguement for their point as opposed to most of the political junkies that divert from the main issue that is being discussed when they are backed into a corner on their view.

Just read some of the political posts on this board and you will see what I mean.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Yes, you're right.

We should go back to the old system of restricted franchises.

What should the qualification be? A yearly income level? Perhaps it should be just landowners. Perhaps just landlords. Perhaps just descendants of titled aristocrats from pre-independence days. What's the best franchise? Who should our limited franchise exclude?

Maybe we should look into gender. I mean, did it really do the country a service when we doubled the franchise by extending the vote to women. After all, at the time, most hadn't gone to college or worked. They were probably too ignorant vote by these definitions, right?

I think I'm going to stay out of the politics forum from now on.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
You know people died to get the right to vote. Of course everybody has the right to vote no matter what you think. I cant believe that this is actually a discussion topic.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
You know some people take this all wrong. How many time have you met someone and said "jeez we let that moron vote, I hope he doesn't!"

It is all good and fine to say that you think only those who take the time to understand the positions and issues should vote but it is a simple scape goat for those of us who haven't tried to help one of these "morons" understand issues and positions of candidates. As people in a democracy it is our job to help get issues out to those who aren't searching for it. Everytime you are in a bar and argue with someone about an issue you have the chance to educate the voting public. Do this instead of thinking of restricting franchise or even hoping that some decide not to vote.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
You know some people take this all wrong. How many time have you met someone and said "jeez we let that moron vote, I hope he doesn't!"

It is all good and fine to say that you think only those who take the time to understand the positions and issues should vote but it is a simple scape goat for those of us who haven't tried to help one of these "morons" understand issues and positions of candidates. As people in a democracy it is our job to help get issues out to those who aren't searching for it. Everytime you are in a bar and argue with someone about an issue you have the chance to educate the voting public. Do this instead of thinking of restricting franchise or even hoping that some decide not to vote.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
If you are talking about taking the vote away from people, well, you're pretty much outside the realm of anything I would consider. Democracy is one of my core beliefs.

However, this part of your article was more interesting, and I think it is your real point:
Allow them to, sure, encourage them to? are you kidding me?!?!)
First of all, though, the public efforts to increase voting are not targeted one by one. We don't select Joe Blow and beg him to vote. The messages are widely broadcast. The assumption behind the quote is that, at present, the more informed tend to vote, and the less informed tend not to vote -- so efforts to increase the voting percentage mainly target the ill informed. I am not sure this assumption is accurate, though. My non-scientific personal observation is that two groups have the lowest voting percentage: the on-the-go and the discouraged. Not the ignorant.

Second, the low percentage of turnout tends to undermine the validity of the election results. For time out of mind, the United States has been able to assume that our election results are valid and binding, and we tend to forget that this can be a weak point in the fabric of democracy. For reasons that I outline in my own article Link this is unraveling in our country. It is easiest to see in the Bush - Gore election where one side claims to this day that the popular vote should be the deciding factor, while the other side argued for quite a period of time that the national map showing results by county -- overwhelmingly red -- should be the deciding factor. Both of these arguments directly undermine the validity of the election results, in that both throw out the established method of determining a winner, in favor of a self serving method of counting. This is a portrait of a country nearing the brink of election trouble -- and, in this atmosphere, I do not like the idea of opening up the following new argument: "You won, but with only half the population voting, you only had the support of a little more than a quarter of America's citizens -- so our refusal to accept the election results is not really all that outrageous."

The point here is that high election turnout rates are supportive of democracy in a deeper sense than we might ordinarily notice.

Finally, as to ignorance, this may be a case of who will throw the first stone. This forum generally attracts fairly knowledgeable people; I don't think I would overstate it if I said that most participants are in the top 10% of the country in terms of knowledge of public affairs. Yet, I think we are often at each other's throats because of each other's ignorance. By and large, people have their own sources of information, and they are pretty ignorant of the data, analysis, and theories that make up the common knowledge of "the other side."

With this in mind, I don't want to be too quick to judge other potential voters, lest I be judged. People might not know the things that I consider to be basic facts, and they might question sources of information that I consider to be rock solid, but I think it is in all of our best interests that they not only be allowed, but also encourage, to vote anyways.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #6 By: Don Bemont - 8/15/2004 7:57:43 AM


I think Don hit the nail on the head. I am not, and I don't believe the radio host was not, saying that anyone should lose their right to vote.

Instead, the point is that people that vote should be those that educate themselves (or are educated by others) and make themselves familiar with the issues before just blindly exercising their right to vote.

Doesn't it frustrate the heck outta of you to find that the Judge that let out the career criminal gets re-elected because no one paid any attention to his record? Or that the Congressman that has made many anti-semitic comments gets re-elected over and over again, again because the voters aren't paying attention to the record?

Sadly, we do have many voters (or potential voters) in this country that don't vote. There's a multitude of reasons for it, including complete dissatisfcation with those that are running, a lack of understanding of the issues, a feeling that none of the issues will affect them, or a feeling that their vote just doesn't count.

I think it would be great to have more people participating in the electoral process, but I do hedge that with a belief/hope that those that participate aren't just going and blindly voting along party lines and are paying attention to the issues and candidates.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
You are referring to Jim "Moron" Moran, aren't you?

Blame the state Republican Party for Congressman Moron. Had they not lumped all the Democrats in Northern Virginia into one district, this rather sleazy and incompetent Representative would be long gone.