Forum Thread

Voting Rights & Civics Test

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 45 of 50 Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Study after study has consistently shown that between 30 and 40 percent of ALL eligible voters wouldn’t pass the current citizenship test. They may have been taught civics in the 60s and 70s, but that doesn’t mean much because the test is constantly changing to reflect modern day America. I’ve helped a few friends study for their tests and I can attest that a solid chunk of the questions reflect the modern day.

    Look - I think it’s a travesty we live in a society where upwards of 40 percent of the voting age population is so clueless that they wouldn’t be able to pass a citizenship test, but stripping those people of their voting rights isn’t the answer. That would only add fuel to the inequality fire.

    Jared, it is not only that; it is the overall "education" to be able to learn to "analyse" things and research things what is missing here; Trump is an good example of that. Why do people become religious? Because they refuse to analyse if something is fake or facts or an "fata morgano"
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Study after study has consistently shown that between 30 and 40 percent of ALL eligible voters wouldn’t pass the current citizenship test. They may have been taught civics in the 60s and 70s, but that doesn’t mean much because the test is constantly changing to reflect modern day America. I’ve helped a few friends study for their tests and I can attest that a solid chunk of the questions reflect the modern day.

    Look - I think it’s a travesty we live in a society where upwards of 40 percent of the voting age population is so clueless that they wouldn’t be able to pass a citizenship test, but stripping those people of their voting rights isn’t the answer. That would only add fuel to the inequality fire.

    Jared, it is not only that; it is the overall "education" to be able to learn to "analyse" things and research things what is missing here; Trump is an good example of that. Why do people become religious? Because they refuse to analyse if something is fake or facts or an "fata morgano"

    My experience with a nurse at my local VA clinic: She claimed she did research on Trump when she voted for him, her final words to me before leaving my VA doctor appointment? bless you.

    It just about turned my stomach. She should be fired.

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Study after study has consistently shown that between 30 and 40 percent of ALL eligible voters wouldn’t pass the current citizenship test.

    I think it would be folly to assume that most voters for Mr. Trump were not well educated. There were a lot of well educated people behind him as well.

    And remember, the D's did not proffer up a credible enough candidate to give many Americans much of a choice. That is probably a bigger factor than any education levels.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Study after study has consistently shown that between 30 and 40 percent of ALL eligible voters wouldn’t pass the current citizenship test.

    I think it would be folly to assume that most voters for Mr. Trump were not well educated. There were a lot of well educated people behind him as well.

    And remember, the D's did not proffer up a credible enough candidate to give many Americans much of a choice. That is probably a bigger factor than any education levels.

    Dave "well educated" does not mean much, if they were not educated in "people behavior" studies or studied only here with the blinders on related to politics and have no "world wide" experience, let alone focus on one area only in life, as well are "mentally indoctrinated" by with whom they surround themselves or the church, neither are capable to distinguish between "facts" and "fiction".
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Study after study has consistently shown that between 30 and 40 percent of ALL eligible voters wouldn’t pass the current citizenship test.

    I think it would be folly to assume that most voters for Mr. Trump were not well educated. There were a lot of well educated people behind him as well.

    And remember, the D's did not proffer up a credible enough candidate to give many Americans much of a choice. That is probably a bigger factor than any education levels.

    Where did I say anything about Donald supporters? I said that a wide swath of studies from left, right, and independent groups consistently show that 30-40% of ALL eligible voters couldn't pass a citizenship test. I didn't bring up Donald's name once.

    I'd also remind you that the "D's" proffered up a candidate that won the overwhelming majority of the votes. The system chose Donald.

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Where did I say anything about Donald supporters? I said that a wide swath of studies from left, right, and independent groups consistently show that 30-40% of ALL eligible voters couldn't pass a citizenship test. I didn't bring up Donald's name once.

    I'd also remind you that the "D's" proffered up a candidate that won the overwhelming majority of the votes. The system chose Donald.

    I stand corrected on your comments on people being able to pass a simple civics test. I would have to agree that this lack of basic civics knowledge is prevalent in all voting groups including those who usually do not vote.

    I would have to say that many Canadians, many of whom do vote, do not understand the basic mechanisms of democracy. There have been attempts to reform our Westminster system towards proportional representation, especially after a political party wins 75% of the seats with 40% of the vote. But too many Canadian raise a big fuss with this change, so it becomes politically untenable.

    ------

    If I recall correctly, Ms. Clinton had 65m votes and Mr. Trump had 62m votes. While American would call this spread an "overwhelming victory," Canadian would call it a close election.

    I will just address the issue that Ms. Clinton "deserved" to win on three fronts.

    1) The Electoral College is the rules of electing the US president. There are good reasons for these rules, and if the country does not like the rules, it should change them.

    2) Mr. Trump still had support of enough Americans to win the Electoral College (45%). He had mustered political support to be a viable contender in this election--even if he did lose. Had that support been 35% or 45%, he would have lost. The electoral college cannot vault a candidate with smaller support to the presidency. And Mr. Trump's support would not have disappeared from the political landscape had Ms. Clinton won the election. Maybe it's a good thing the USA is going through this experiment now than later.

    3) If the numbers were reversed and Ms. Clinton won, many left-leaning political junkies would have claimed at how well the Electoral College worked. It seems this debate is partisan between the winners and losers, not the D's and R's.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Where did I say anything about Donald supporters? I said that a wide swath of studies from left, right, and independent groups consistently show that 30-40% of ALL eligible voters couldn't pass a citizenship test. I didn't bring up Donald's name once.

    I'd also remind you that the "D's" proffered up a candidate that won the overwhelming majority of the votes. The system chose Donald.

    I stand corrected on your comments on people being able to pass a simple civics test. I would have to agree that this lack of basic civics knowledge is prevalent in all voting groups including those who usually do not vote.

    I would have to say that many Canadians, many of whom do vote, do not understand the basic mechanisms of democracy. There have been attempts to reform our Westminster system towards proportional representation, especially after a political party wins 75% of the seats with 40% of the vote. But too many Canadian raise a big fuss with this change, so it becomes politically untenable.

    ------

    If I recall correctly, Ms. Clinton had 65m votes and Mr. Trump had 62m votes. While American would call this spread an "overwhelming victory," Canadian would call it a close election.

    I will just address the issue that Ms. Clinton "deserved" to win on three fronts.

    1) The Electoral College is the rules of electing the US president. There are good reasons for these rules, and if the country does not like the rules, it should change them.

    2) Mr. Trump still had support of enough Americans to win the Electoral College (45%). He had mustered political support to be a viable contender in this election--even if he did lose. Had that support been 35% or 45%, he would have lost. The electoral college cannot vault a candidate with smaller support to the presidency. And Mr. Trump's support would not have disappeared from the political landscape had Ms. Clinton won the election. Maybe it's a good thing the USA is going through this experiment now than later.

    3) If the numbers were reversed and Ms. Clinton won, many left-leaning political junkies would have claimed at how well the Electoral College worked. It seems this debate is partisan between the winners and losers, not the D's and R's.

    Perhaps you can detail the “good reasons” for the electoral college. Hamilton’s support in Federalist 68 failed.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote: 1) The Electoral College is the rules of electing the US president. There are good reasons for these rules, and if the country does not like the rules, it should change them.

    We're getting a bit off topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed.

    The Electoral College was created to ensure slave states joined the union. Period. End of sentence.

    Revisionist history advocates want to convince you that the Electoral College was created to protect small states, but that is simply untrue. The only way slave states would sign on to the Constitution was if the human beings they owned counted towards the census and if there was no direct election of the President.

    Using the census instead of direct popular vote ensured slave states would have out sized power and that's exactly what happened considering twelve of our first sixteen Presidents owned human beings as property.

    I'd love nothing more than to get rid of the Electoral College, but I'm not holding my breath because that would require Republicans to agree to something that would ultimately dilute their grip on power. It simply isn't going to happen.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dems know the way it all works. We will win our 7 large states and hope the best. Maybe next time we might concentrate on number 8 through 26.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dave Volek Wrote: 1) The Electoral College is the rules of electing the US president. There are good reasons for these rules, and if the country does not like the rules, it should change them.

    We're getting a bit off topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed.

    The Electoral College was created to ensure slave states joined the union. Period. End of sentence.

    Revisionist history advocates want to convince you that the Electoral College was created to protect small states, but that is simply untrue. The only way slave states would sign on to the Constitution was if the human beings they owned counted towards the census and if there was no direct election of the President.

    Using the census instead of direct popular vote ensured slave states would have out sized power and that's exactly what happened considering twelve of our first sixteen Presidents owned human beings as property.

    I'd love nothing more than to get rid of the Electoral College, but I'm not holding my breath because that would require Republicans to agree to something that would ultimately dilute their grip on power. It simply isn't going to happen.

    Yes Jared; you probably got it correct; however such means that you get idiots like McConnell, Sessions, and a lot more like them in high positions in the government; also it implies as T.J. says that the most "red" uneducated States will have the most "say". No wonder that the GOP, has won most elections, because of the "electoral college" But as you said "It is simply not going to happen" which means: Thus are you ready for another "red" President? Sorry "votes only should count.!
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: Dems know the way it all works. We will win our 7 large states and hope the best. Maybe next time we might concentrate on number 8 through 26.

    Secretary Clinton won twenty states, not seven.

    Those twenty states have a hell of a lot more people than the thirty states Donald won. That's why, as I have constantly reminded you, she won the popular vote by three million.

    It's not her fault a bunch of backwards thinking angry white people decided to overrule the will of the American people. And I'm not someone who thinks we should stoop to the lowest common denominator in order to get those backwards thinking angry white people back into our party.

    If we have to walk away from our values of inclusiveness, compassion, and equal rights for all in order to get back in the majority then I'd rather be in the minority for the rest of my life.

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dave Volek Wrote: 1) The Electoral College is the rules of electing the US president. There are good reasons for these rules, and if the country does not like the rules, it should change them.

    We're getting a bit off topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed.

    The Electoral College was created to ensure slave states joined the union. Period. End of sentence.

    Revisionist history advocates want to convince you that the Electoral College was created to protect small states, but that is simply untrue. The only way slave states would sign on to the Constitution was if the human beings they owned counted towards the census and if there was no direct election of the President.

    Jared. I can't argue with you here. Bringing the slave states on board was probably a big part of the reasoning, although I think the smaller northern states also like this arrangement at the time.

    In the meantime, these are the rules to elect the president of the United States. Mr. Trump won by those rules. If enough people don't like them, the rules should be changed. But changing electoral rules is very difficult in a modern democracy.

    Regardless, the electoral college will not vault an unpopular candidate into the office. Mr. Trump, whether we like it or not, was a viable contender for that office.

    Getting back to the electoral college, here is my hypothetical history had the union not been formed. Had the USA been 13 separate countries, it is less likely these 13 independent countries would have been strong enough to expand past the Appalachians. No Louisiana purchase, loss of the War of 1812, no Texas annexation, no SW US annexatian, no Oregon Treaty settlement, no Alaska purchase, no Hawaii. It was the union that allowed these historical events to happen, and the electoral college brought these 13 states into one country.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Believe it or not, there are actually a number of countries where voting is mandatory. If you have watched any of Jimmy Kimmel's Lie Witness news segments, it is obvious that there are some really dumb people in this country. On balance, though, I think we would be better off if voting was compulsory, but that will never happen while the Republicans control Congress.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/06/more-than-half-us-voters-might-abstain-today-these-countries-thats-punishable-offense/?utm_term=.8e00eb50f253

    Here is one example of Jimmy's interviews:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSjyf6n28VI

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Voting rights and civics test/s?

    Okay, but only for people who vote or identify themselves as republicans, let's see how dumb they really are since they elected a majority senate.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    While I would like to see much higher voter participation, I'm not sure that mandatory voting would change things much. What the country really needs is an educated electorate...not voters who mindlessly push buttons based on some ad they saw on TV before going to vote.

    In my previous role as a precinct chair and door-to door canvasser for candidates, I remain appalled at how little people know about how both federal and state government works, the respective roles and powers of the various branches of government, how bills are made and come to the floor for a vote, how the bills are amended or tacked onto a major omnibus bill, how committees function, and much more.

    During the Obama presidency I observed that many liberals who voted for Obama out of emotions, had little appreciation of Obama's actual presidential powers. Many, like their Republican counterparts, thought that the president had more power than dictated by the constitution.

    So a non-partisan course on civics should be mandatory at the high school level, maybe for all high school seniors before they register to vote. I remember having a course like that as a junior in high school, but it seems it is no longer a priority.