Perhaps, but with the disenfranchisement of certain groups for minimal competency reasons, it is certainly reasonable to assume that Obama's camp would suffer far worse. If you were to factor in IQ as someone suggested, it would be a done deal.Doubtful to be sure. Both sides would suffer as there are large voting blocks on both sides that vote for their particular brand no matter what the issues. Remember, there are people that voted for Bush twice and there are those that will vote for Obama again.
Over 75% of voters would be kicked off if something like Tigger suggested was put into place.
Doubtful to be sure. Both sides would suffer as there are large voting blocks on both sides that vote for their particular brand no matter what the issues. Remember, there are people that voted for Bush twice and there are those that will vote for Obama again.
Over 75% of voters would be kicked off if something like Tigger suggested was put into place.
Perhaps, but with the disenfranchisement of certain groups for minimal competency reasons, it is certainly reasonable to assume that Obama's camp would suffer far worse. If you were to factor in IQ as someone suggested, it would be a done deal.
Perhaps, but with the disenfranchisement of certain groups for minimal competency reasons, it is certainly reasonable to assume that Obama's camp would suffer far worse. If you were to factor in IQ as someone suggested, it would be a done deal.
It would, however, remove Sarah Palin from any list of potential Presidential Candidates. She's smart enough, but more than half of her support would be ineligible to vote.
It's a simple academic matter of demographics, voter patterns and studies on intelligence.Can you actually document this with evidence or are we about to go down the "Republicans are smarter than Democrats, I should know because I'm smart and I'm a Republican" road again?
If you vetted those functionally illiterate and so on, it would be far worse for the Democrats than photo id, that's for sure. Obama would not have a prayer.
Perhaps, but with the disenfranchisement of certain groups for minimal competency reasons, it is certainly reasonable to assume that Obama's camp would suffer far worse. If you were to factor in IQ as someone suggested, it would be a done deal.
It's a simple academic matter of demographics, voter patterns and studies on intelligence.
As much as I am sure you would be a hoot to drink with, I am very glad that you are in no position of power to even remotely make your style of voting come true.
Can you imagine how civil rights groups would respond to a competency requirement?
Since the average IQ in Connecticut is 100.6 and ranks 7th in the US what are you trying to say. Ten of the bottom 14 states are red. What are you saying? The top seven in IQ ranking are blue.
Didn't you hear what Santorum said, "College's are indoctrination mills and are for snobs"...the GOP wants to keep their sheep stupid so they believe anything...
Yep, and my system clears those people out of the voting pool as well. Both the willfully ignorant and the unintentionally ignorant would be carved out of the system entirely.
Didn't you hear what Santorum said, "College's are indoctrination mills and are for snobs"...the GOP wants to keep their sheep stupid so they believe anything...
It's a simple academic matter of demographics, voter patterns and studies on intelligence.
State Avg. IQ 2004
1 Connecticut 113 Kerry
2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry
3 New Jersey 111 Kerry
4 New York 109 Kerry
5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry
6 Hawaii 106 Kerry
7 Maryland 105 Kerry
8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry
9 Illinois 104 Kerry
10 Delaware 103 Kerry
11 Minnesota 102 Kerry
12 Vermont 102 Kerry
13 Washington 102 Kerry
14 California 101 Kerry
15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry
16 Maine 100 Kerry
17 Virginia 100 Bush
18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry
19 Colorado 99 Bush
20 Iowa 99 Bush
21 Michigan 99 Kerry
22 Nevada 99 Bush
23 Ohio 99 Bush
24 Oregon 99 Kerry
25 Alaska 98 Bush
26 Florida 98 Bush
27 Missouri 98 Bush
28 Kansas 96 Bush
29 Nebraska 95 Bush
30 Arizona 94 Bush
31 Indiana 94 Bush
32 Tennessee 94 Bush
33 North Carolina 93 Bush
34 West Virginia 93 Bush
35 Arkansas 92 Bush
36 Georgia 92 Bush
37 Kentucky 92 Bush
38 New Mexico 92 Bush
39 North Dakota 92 Bush
40 Texas 92 Bush
41 Alabama 90 Bush
42 Louisiana 90 Bush
43 Montana 90 Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 Bush
45 South Dakota 90 Bush
46 South Carolina 89 Bush
47 Wyoming 89 Bush
48 Idaho 87 Bush
49 Utah 87 Bush
50 Mississippi 85 Bush
Why would you be so against the idea of actually requiring people to be competent in order to vote? Would you hire a general contractor who didn't know anything about construction? Would you go to a surgeon who has no idea how to perform the operation you need?
Kinda like electoral eugenics.Yep, and my system clears those people out of the voting pool as well. Both the willfully ignorant and the unintentionally ignorant would be carved out of the system entirely.
no offense, but no one cares about your system, the one we have now is sufficient...no one understands why the right feels the need to change it...
No, he's just trying to appear more populist than anybody else. So he's trying to paint Romney as "the rich guy" and Gingrich as the "intellectual" who are both out of touch. Ironically, Santorum actually has a few degrees, so it's not like he didn't get plenty of schooling.
(His characterizations of Romney as rich and Gingrich as intellectual are fairly accurate, BTW)
That's fine Jason because there's nobody here that I give enough of a **** about to care whether they care or not. The system currently in place is NOT sufficient. It has led us to a century and a half of decline and has us on the precipice of a fall from which this nation cannot and will not survive. There was a reason the Founders LIMITED who had the right to vote. We've totally ignored that reasoning in the last century, and it may soon be our downfall.
That's fine Jason because there's nobody here that I give enough of a **** about to care whether they care or not. The system currently in place is NOT sufficient. It has led us to a century and a half of decline and has us on the precipice of a fall from which this nation cannot and will not survive. There was a reason the Founders LIMITED who had the right to vote. We've totally ignored that reasoning in the last century, and it may soon be our downfall.
Because in your system, I don't think it would really help because it doesn't weed out the REAL problem and that is partisanship. People can know about the candidates and STILL choose to vote for one based solely on partisanship.
Partisinship does not equal competancy.
Kinda like electoral eugenics.
People deserve the government they choose, TNE. If an individual chooses to vote purely for one party, that's their choice and more power to them. What I want to make sure is that they at least know who and what it is they are voting for. Then, when they stand in front of their Maker on the Judgement Day, there can be no question that they knowingly and willingly ignored Right to vote for Wrong and may the Gods and Goddesses have not the least bit of Mercy on their filthy, disgusting Souls.
For example.... I live in Massachusetts, home of some of the most vitriolic anti-gun legislators in the entire country. Almost all of them are members of the Democratic Party. Yet, when the gun owners and hunters of this state go to the polls they almost always re-elect these people by a wide margin. In large part because they buy into the rhetoric of the candidate rather than looking at their voting record. I can't tell you how many of these people, when faced with the written proof are dumbfounded.... "But HE TOLD ME he wouldn't...."
a century and a half of decline? we have been far more prosperous and powerful as a nation over the last 150 years than the time before that....
and that's fine and dandy, but it doesn't solve the problem. The only thing it does is satisfy your "When they meet their maker" rhetoric which I don't buy or agree with. It solves nothing in the real world.
Sorry, but in this case I am definitely going to have to disagree with you because you said you wanted competency and this doesn't provide that.
If you were really interested in competency you would have to find a way around partisinship.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?