Jump to content

Should you have to pass a basic civics test to be able to vote?


mexitucky

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This whole thing seems so defeatist... which is as un-American an idea as I can think of. This is the country of "We can do better" and "We are a city set upon a hill" since its very foundation. So to suggest "There's nothing we can do for these people so let's not allow them to vote" just seems so awful. Like we're giving up on a fully representative democracy.

 

I want to find a way to get more people engaged, not eliminate voters.

 

I want a country where people care about what's going on and know who their leaders are. I don't think the way to get there is to start limiting voter rolls based on who can pass a test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No such word as unalienable.

 

Both are considered correct and synonymous in modern usage.

 

"Unalienable" is the form used by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

 

"Un-" and "In-" were not historically identical prefixes but today are essentially considered such.

 

Both words have appeared in legal dictionaries with roughly similar definitions, though not identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thing seems so defeatist... which is as un-American an idea as I can think of. This is the country of "We can do better" and "We are a city set upon a hill" since its very foundation. So to suggest "There's nothing we can do for these people so let's not allow them to vote" just seems so awful. Like we're giving up on a fully representative democracy.

 

I want to find a way to get more people engaged, not eliminate voters.

 

I want a country where people care about what's going on and know who their leaders are. I don't think the way to get there is to start limiting voter rolls based on who can pass a test.

 

As should we all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already said my answer is NO to this question, but I do not think the intent is to disenfranchise, it is merely pointing out how ill-informed many voters are. The big question is not who should be allowed to vote or not vote, it should be, how can we make people give a hoot about anything outside of their bubble? And the answer is, America was created so that people can give two craps if they so choose. It is a sad reality, sure. But that is how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are considered correct and synonymous in modern usage.

 

"Unalienable" is the form used by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

 

"Un-" and "In-" were not historically identical prefixes but today are essentially considered such.

 

Both words have appeared in legal dictionaries with roughly similar definitions, though not identical.

 

It's not in my edition of Webster, therefore it doesn't exist. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are considered correct and synonymous in modern usage.

 

"Unalienable" is the form used by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

 

"Un-" and "In-" were not historically identical prefixes but today are essentially considered such.

 

Both words have appeared in legal dictionaries with roughly similar definitions, though not identical.

 

Heck, I had a hard enough time with flammable and inflammable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are considered correct and synonymous in modern usage.

 

"Unalienable" is the form used by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

 

"Un-" and "In-" were not historically identical prefixes but today are essentially considered such.

 

Both words have appeared in legal dictionaries with roughly similar definitions, though not identical.

 

Jefferson may be a Founding Father, but that doesn't mean he could spell. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.