...Regardless of party affiliation, if they don't "contribute" to the system and/or if they have no knowledge of anything other than the entertainment industry, they shouldn't vote.

 

Scooterbob -

 

You are old enough to remember (but you may not have been aware of) a group from back in the 70's that called itslelf "Don't Vote".

 

They were non-partisan, and their raison d'etre was to convince people that didn't bother to inform themselves of the issues (and where the candidates stood on them) that they actually hurt the country by going to the polls. Effectively, they campaigned for uninformed (and/or stupid) people to stay home.

 

For an election or two, it looked like they were going to get a foothold. Slowly but surely though, they faded away.

 

More's the pity.

 

 

Frances

Scooterbob -

 

You are old enough to remember (but you may not have been aware of) a group from back in the 70's that called itslelf "Don't Vote".

 

They were non-partisan, and their raison d'etre was to convince people that didn't bother to inform themselves of the issues (and where the candidates stood on them) that they actually hurt the country by going to the polls. Effectively, they campaigned for uninformed (and/or stupid) people to stay home.

 

For an election or two, it looked like they were going to get a foothold. Slowly but surely though, they faded away.

 

More's the pity.

 

 

Frances

 

Too bad the movement didn't succeed. It is unfortunate for everyone when voters, from both sides of the political landscape, who contribute and are informed have their votes cancelled by those of the opposite ilk.

 

I believe that many of these "get out the vote" programs that want everyone to vote and those programs that allow you to register to vote when you purchase a Big Mac or a bottle of Thunderbird (so to speak) are seriously harming the country. We need quality instead of quantity at the polls.

Too bad the movement didn't succeed. It is unfortunate for everyone when voters, from both sides of the political landscape, who contribute and are informed have their votes cancelled by those of the opposite ilk.

 

I believe that many of these "get out the vote" programs that want everyone to vote and those programs that allow you to register to vote when you purchase a Big Mac or a bottle of Thunderbird (so to speak) are seriously harming the country. We need quality instead of quantity at the polls.

My grandfather who past away in the early 80's so I think his present condition excludes him from prosecution for voter tampering, would tell me stories about him representing the Democratic party in Whitley County around Corbin, KY and on election day handing how 1/2 pints of whiskey for votes for the Democratic candidates.

Too bad the movement didn't succeed. It is unfortunate for everyone when voters, from both sides of the political landscape, who contribute and are informed have their votes cancelled by those of the opposite ilk.

 

I believe that many of these "get out the vote" programs that want everyone to vote and those programs that allow you to register to vote when you purchase a Big Mac or a bottle of Thunderbird (so to speak) are seriously harming the country. We need quality instead of quantity at the polls.

 

Just a thought.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a simple three question quiz for someone to take, prior to entering the voting booth? If you can't answer three simple questions about current issues, you can't vote.

 

 

Frances

Just a thought.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a simple three question quiz for someone to take, prior to entering the voting booth? If you can't answer three simple questions about current issues, you can't vote.

 

 

Frances

Great idea. I propose including the following in the question pool, from which the potential voter could choose the three questions that he or she wants to answer:

 

1. Who is the current VP?

 

2. Who is the governor of this state?

 

3. Who is your representative in the US House of Representatives?

 

4. Name one current or former Supreme Court justice.

 

5. Are there one, three, or five branches of federal govenment?

 

6. What country borders the US on its south (bottom) side?

 

7. What country borders the US on its north (top) side?

 

9. Was the Declaration of Independence signed in 1976 1876, 1776, or 1476?

 

10. Which of the following is NOT a state: Hawaii, New England, New Mexico, or the state in which you are currently standing?

 

Instead of the so-called "voter guides" distributed by so-called non-partisan tax exempt "get out the vote" organizations, the major political parties could actually help further education in this country at no cost to the taxpayers.

I'm against changing voting rights by one iota. I just believe that you should have to positively identify yourself before you can vote.

Just a thought.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a simple three question quiz for someone to take, prior to entering the voting booth? If you can't answer three simple questions about current issues, you can't vote.

 

 

Frances

 

I add a hardy "amen".

 

In Boyd County, those half pints were quite popular. Here, they were called "little boys". I know that car trunks full of "little boys" were plentiful around here in vehicles driven by Republicans on election day. I am sure that our local Democrats did the same. Suffice it to say that neither side provided Makers Mark but it did satisfy many a thirst particularly in the downtown Ashland precincts and Catlettsburg.

Great idea. I propose including the following in the question pool, from which the potential voter could choose the three questions that he or she wants to answer:

 

1. Who is the current VP?

 

2. Who is the governor of this state?

 

3. Who is your representative in the US House of Representatives?

 

4. Name one current or former Supreme Court justice.

 

5. Are there one, three, or five branches of federal govenment?

 

6. What country borders the US on its south (bottom) side?

 

7. What country borders the US on its north (top) side?

 

9. Was the Declaration of Independence signed in 1976 1876, 1776, or 1476?

 

10. Which of the following is NOT a state: Hawaii, New England, New Mexico, or the state in which you are currently standing?

 

Instead of the so-called "voter guides" distributed by so-called non-partisan tax exempt "get out the vote" organizations, the major political parties could actually help further education in this country at no cost to the taxpayers.

 

 

We used to have literacy tests, poll taxes, and other simple "tests" to screen out citizens who tried to vote. But we called those "Jim Crow" laws and they were used to screen "those people" we didn't think should be voting.

We used to have literacy tests, poll taxes, and other simple "tests" to screen out citizens who tried to vote. But we called those "Jim Crow" laws and they were used to screen "those people" we didn't think should be voting.

In the future, I will clearly label my satirical posts as such or use a rolling eye smilie for your benefit.

In the future, I will clearly label my satirical posts as such or use a rolling eye smilie for your benefit.

 

 

Thanks. :thumb:

I'm against changing voting rights by one iota. I just believe that you should have to positively identify yourself before you can vote.

- and -

We used to have literacy tests, poll taxes, and other simple "tests" to screen out citizens who tried to vote. But we called those "Jim Crow" laws and they were used to screen "those people" we didn't think should be voting.

 

HHSDad and Hatz -

 

I fully understand your position, and I (as well as anyone) appreciate the cost that we have paid as a country to gain the right of our citizens to vote.

 

Like you, I wish that 100% of our populace would exercise that right. On the other hand, I also agree with Scooterbob's position - that an informed voter is this countries best hope for a bright future.

 

Please don't misread my position, to be one of intentionally screening potential voters based on how they would vote (Republican, Democrat, Independent etc.).

 

 

Thanks,

Frances

1) 100% Pro-Life

2) As someone earlier said, a set tax rate regardless of income.

3) Increased technology research into military advancements (we need to have the very best equipment for our men and women)

4) Stricter immigration standards (if you want to live here, learn to speak the language, among other requirements)

5) Very strict penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants

6) Eliminate any and all "mudslinging" in political campaigning

7) Restrict any non-American citizens from publicaly campaigning for any American politicans (if you don't have a vote in our election, I don't care what you think about the candidates)

8) must take a "qualification" test in order to be able to vote.

 

 

People would try to use the fact that I am 100% against abortion and 100% for the death penalty against me.

If they do, UKMustangFan, it is not a valid argument. If you want to be "legal" about it, the keys are the 14th Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection. In regard to the death penalty, it is rather hard to argue, in light of all the endless appeals and reviews, that the individual has not received both due process and equal protection. However, in regard to the preborn baby, he/she receives neither. Of course, the argument then turns to whether or not we grant the 14th Amendment rights to the preborn. I, like you, believe that one deserves such protection from the moment of conception. Others don't so believe.

 

On the other hand, I also believe in the right to choose for women. However, that right is the right to either get pregnant or not to get pregnant. After that decision has been made, the whole scenerio changes because you have introduced the rights of another being and that being is, I believe, entitled to due process and equal protection.

Two things on my platform off the top of my head.

 

1) Quit the UN and tell them to move their headquarters.

2) Remove political exemption from the "no-call list." If I don't want to talk to telemarketers, I certainly don't want to listen to a prerecorded message from candidate Joe Blow.

1) 100% Pro-Life

2) As someone earlier said, a set tax rate regardless of income.

3) Increased technology research into military advancements (we need to have the very best equipment for our men and women)

4) Stricter immigration standards (if you want to live here, learn to speak the language, among other requirements)

5) Very strict penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants

6) Eliminate any and all "mudslinging" in political campaigning

7) Restrict any non-American citizens from publicaly campaigning for any American politicans (if you don't have a vote in our election, I don't care what you think about the candidates)

8) must take a "qualification" test in order to be able to vote.

 

 

People would try to use the fact that I am 100% against abortion and 100% for the death penalty against me.

 

In my own mind I think this is a good thing, I also agree we shouldn't tax people that're "wealthier" bc they worked for it, however, taxing dividends( is a bit different and I think could be increased in some cases) I'm thinking,.. and I know it would be complex to be balanced, a tax on bonuses or sales profit. Have a set tax for a company of indivdual based on certain prjected income with some room,, but only tax it a few percent. I know when I got a sales check with over $700 in sales and only made 2-300 more I was angry, and that's not even close to it. But make it fare and balanced.

 

Like I said it'd take time and probably some good mathmeticians.