But it was altered. Where are political parties in the Constitution? Where is there a constitutional right to vote a straight ticket? These measures were added by parties to make it easier for them to get elected, not to facilitate the decisions of the voters. Removing the straight ticket button erodes no rights.

 

 

Beat me to it.:thumb:

But it was altered. Where are political parties in the Constitution? Where is there a constitutional right to vote a straight ticket? These measures were added by parties to make it easier for them to get elected, not to facilitate the decisions of the voters. Removing the straight ticket button erodes no rights.

 

Of course it doesn't erode rights. However, you're saying that if someone isn't smart enough to know who is a Democrat or who is a Republican then they should not vote or have any assistance. I'm saying that you cannot restrict that type of vote. It solves nothing.

 

If your argument is that the it will force the voter to be smarter, you're kidding yourself. All its going to do is force a very small number of voters to actually remember the name of the person in "their" party. Nothing more so what does it solve?

Of course it doesn't erode rights. However, you're saying that if someone isn't smart enough to know who is a Democrat or who is a Republican then they should not vote or have any assistance. I'm saying that you cannot restrict that type of vote. It solves nothing.

 

If your argument is that the it will force the voter to be smarter, you're kidding yourself. All its going to do is force a very small number of voters to actually remember the name of the person in "their" party. Nothing more so what does it solve?

 

I'm not arguing for intellectual discrimination or arguing that this would make the voter smarter. At the very least, the voter would have to go down the list and pluck their party's candidate out. For better or worse, some voters' would have to move from using zero thought to a minute amount of thought.

I'm not arguing for intellectual discrimination or arguing that this would make the voter smarter. At the very least, the voter would have to go down the list and pluck their party's candidate out. For better or worse, some voters' would have to move from using zero thought to a minute amount of thought.

 

 

...and what have we solved?

I just want people to be a little more educated on their choices. If that option is not there and you also eliminate all references to parties in the ballot then there are 3 possibilities from my perspective:

 

1) People will actually educate themselves before they think to cast a ballot(the ideal).

 

2) People will just pick according to name, leading to absurd results. (a potential disaster, I know).

 

3) People who refuse to educate themselves will just stay home (also not a bad thing in my estimation).

 

Not everyone agrees with me, I just can't stand the idea of people who have no idea what the issues are being able to cast a ballot. If you don't know what you are being asked to vote for you shouldn't vote in my opinion. I can't stand the idea of encouraging everyone to vote no matter whether they know what is going on or not.

 

I'm with you in that I would like to see those who vote do it more responsibly by educating themselves about the candidates and their positions on the issues. But it's not likely.

 

As far as the scenarios you posted in 2) and 3), both of those are already happening. Scenario 3 is more common, but we had a perfect example of scenario 2 in the Ag Commissioner's race, where the Dem candidate only got past the primary by piggy-backing upon the name recognition of his more-famous namesake in the state senate. Clearly he is not a serious candidate -- he thinks the Gen. Assembly should be outlawed and all power originate from county judge-execs (if you think the General Assembly is self-serving now, imagine what it would be with judge-execs holding all the power). And I'm still trying to figure out where the Farmer family farm in Clay County is, and where he gets his qualifications from. Obviously people only voted for him because of his status as a former UK player, which is a complete joke.

 

Again, I would like to see more people educate themselves before ducking into the booth. But at the same time, instituting a "poll test" harkens back to a pretty awful time in our country, when blacks and other ethnic minorities found numerous obstacles put in place by the ruling WASP class to deny them the franchise ensure the WASPs' continued stranglehold on power.

No ! There has to be an easy way for the lazy uninformed person to vote . Pressing the enter button after each selection is hard work .

No ! There has to be an easy way for the lazy uninformed person to vote . Pressing the enter button after each selection is hard work .

 

 

Why?

Why?

It was sarcasm pure sarcasm :fire:

...and what have we solved?

 

We add a degree of thought to voting that didn't exist before and we begin to subtract from political parties' stranglehold on elections.

It was sarcasm pure sarcasm :fire:

 

Just checking, I saw you voted differently than me on this one, that's why I wasn't sure. :thumb:

We add a degree of thought to voting that didn't exist before and we begin to subtract from political parties' stranglehold on elections.

 

I would bet neither would actually happen.

I would bet neither would actually happen.

 

We can't be sure though. The American populace is nothing if not lazy where the political process is concerned so if voting was a bit more challenging for them, i.e. not just filling in the box next to Democrat or Republican or looking for the D or R next to the name, then maybe people who don't know what they're doing in the booth will stay home.

 

That's just fine in my book.

I'm with you in that I would like to see those who vote do it more responsibly by educating themselves about the candidates and their positions on the issues. But it's not likely.

 

As far as the scenarios you posted in 2) and 3), both of those are already happening. Scenario 3 is more common, but we had a perfect example of scenario 2 in the Ag Commissioner's race, where the Dem candidate only got past the primary by piggy-backing upon the name recognition of his more-famous namesake in the state senate. Clearly he is not a serious candidate -- he thinks the Gen. Assembly should be outlawed and all power originate from county judge-execs (if you think the General Assembly is self-serving now, imagine what it would be with judge-execs holding all the power). And I'm still trying to figure out where the Farmer family farm in Clay County is, and where he gets his qualifications from. Obviously people only voted for him because of his status as a former UK player, which is a complete joke.

 

Again, I would like to see more people educate themselves before ducking into the booth. But at the same time, instituting a "poll test" harkens back to a pretty awful time in our country, when blacks and other ethnic minorities found numerous obstacles put in place by the ruling WASP class to deny them the franchise ensure the WASPs' continued stranglehold on power.

 

 

Richie did graduate from UK with a degree in Agriculture. As far as why that makes him qualified, ... my question would be what were the qualifications of his opponent?

 

I do agree that he got the job because of his status as a former UK player. However, I don't think you have to have a farm to hold down this position.

I've done the research. I know what party most closely represents my values, views, and wishes. I vote for that party.

I've done the research. I know what party most closely represents my values, views, and wishes. I vote for that party.

 

 

Great! Since you've spent all the time doing that research you know who the candidates are from that party, and as such will have no trouble taking the extra minute or two to read the ballot and pick out the names that you will clearly recognize from your research. :thumb: