This just shows how stupid the average voter is. 38% of the people that are strongly anti-war voted for Mccain. 49% of the people that were against the were voted for Mccain....the same guy that said we should be in Iraq for 100 years. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHREP
Just check out the Obama love-fest, a lot of people have no clue on the where candidates stand on real issues.
Several things here: 1. Why is this stupid? Perhaps they are not single issue voters. 2. It says "disapprove of the war" - but that could mean they disapprove of the leadership, for example. 3. This might confirm part of the reason Obama lost. There's some talk that Obama's big lead in the polls caused independent Obama voters to say "he's won - let's go get a good Republican too". Lots of people who like Obama also like McCain - the reasons have nothing to do with the issues.
They remember how McCain championed against Bush's initial strategy. I think the reporters attributed it to a not-Bush vote. Plus they trust the guy more than Romney.
For example, I like them because I find them both strangely attractive. I'm so conservative on some issues and liberal on others that I've just decided to wait for the nominees, watch the debates, and decide which one convinces me the most.
i was telling my friends that democracy is flawed. majority of the people do not have clues what the **** they are voting about. so essentially, the current system leads to idiots in office. no one thinks about things carefully. vote for whatever sounds good at the time. heck, some people just vote when they have no idea what the heck they are voting for. they should have an exam system. if you don't pass, you can't vote.
Yes, let's limit voting to a select group. The needs and concerns of the uneducated should be ignored and thrown aside. Perhaps we should also limit it by wealth - the poor can't get grasp more complex economic issues that the wealthy face, so maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote either.
well, what do you suggest then? i'm just tossing ideas out there. it's probably better if people smart enough to know what they are voting for to vote. in all seriousness, a lot people don't know what they are voting for.
No one can grasp the issues that Congress and the government faces - smart or not. We're not experts on health care, social security, economics, foreign policy, etc. That's why we get people that we believe to be reasonably smart and ask them to figure out the details. I'm not sure why there's a need to limit voting.
That's not what yuantian means. He means have an exam on the voting process/politics and only those that actually understand what they're voting for gets to vote. This would not discriminate poor people. Its like you're implying poor people aren't able to do well in standardized tests. It would discriminate against the uneducated and illiterate, but that's the whole purpose..to weed out those that have no idea WTF they're voting for.
Why aren't the concerns of the uneducated and illiterate valid concerns? Are they lesser members of society? Besides which, do you really believe there's this huge scourge of illiterate people going out and voting and messing up elections?
not saying "messing up" elections. more like, skew the result. and you don't have to be illiterate people to vote without thinking. a lot folks with good education, don't take the time to think about it. i have a feeling that a lot young people are voting for obama because it's a trend or cool to vote for him. not cause they agree with him.
I've been on this soapbox before, but everyone, whether they know anything about the issues or not, should vote. The fewer voters we have the more important special interests become. If 50% of voters vote, it means someone will win with about 26% of the vote. So, the NRA or Sierra Club or take your pick can say, "Hey, we brought in 2% of the voters who voted for you and without us you would have lost... here are our demands." If 100% of the people vote, the sway special interest groups have is greatly diminished as politicians have to try and appeal to the larger audience. I know it may sound backward, but the smaller the vote, the more corrupting it is to the system and the larger the vote (even if most of them are idiots) the better it is because politicians are no longer as beholden to groups and positions.
i dont know about the part about taking exams for voting, but i do think that anyone receiving govt assitance should not be allowed to vote.
good point. but to me, election is basically a political popularity contest. like you said, if 100% of people vote. that will just mean that candidates will get MORE MONEY from big companies. more scale in their self promotion. so really, people are not voting based on their own decision. rather, on how much they are exposed to commercials and such. more people vote, more money, more companies, more corruption, add more fuel to the bad system.
Moron. That means we'd have no voters. Did you go to a public school? A university that gets Federal research money? Drive on interstate highways? Watch HDTV? How about Social security or Medicaid? You going to prevent them from voting? Should people employed by industry that get government contracts or sweetheart tax breaks not vote? Your statement is absurd, anti-American, and sadly, would probably be applauded on most of wingnut radio.
