The development of Democracy: a Licence to vote?

[clairobscur]

@Karmagun

I don’t. It’s one of the options.

Not ever, just every x years.

Not if the test questions evolve with society.

How could it evolve with society, since only those who agree with the “correct” answers have a say (through their votes)?

No. I haven’t even had a chance to think about the questions. And see my reply above.

The licence is not subjective, it depends on what the questions are.

And how could the questions not be subjective?

If the questions are related to what is endorsed in the constitution, then they are objective insofar as they relate to what it means to be an american (in your case; I’m in europe).

I’m european too, but anyway :

-Furst, the content of the constitution can evolve itself. Once again, how this would be possible if the only people who can modify it are elected only by people who answer “correctly” the questions?

-Second, apart if the test is actually a quizz about the constitution’s text, I stil fail to perceive how it could be objective. How could you determine the correct course of action when there’s an annoying brat crying in a supermarket (as in your first example) on the basis of the constitution?

To all: if you don’t agree with curtailing universal suffrage, then there’s no point in going into the details of defining the test.
[/quote]

Problem is, I think that until now you failed to provide a good reason to consider curtailing universal suffrage at the first place. If you don’t see any yourself, how can you expect us to find one?

One more thing, consider this: you allow your fellow voters to vote in favour of state killings (the death penalty) but you are not willing to allow for a system which only takes away your vote, not your life. I think there’s a twisted reasoning there.

I’m oposed to death penalty, but anyway, this is irrelevant. People sentenced to death aren’t deprived of their life on the basis of their answers to a test, but on the basis of their actions.

Besides, people do accept a system where your vote can be taken away. Convicted felons do lose their right to vote (once again, on the basis of their actions, not their opinions). So I can’t see the contradiction here.

[clairobscur]

ooopss…I completely mangled the quotes in my previous post. Hope you’ll be able to sort it out…

[clairobscur]

Not ever, just every x years.

Not if the test questions evolve with society.

How could it evolve with society, since only those who agree with the “correct” answers have a say (through their votes)?

The licence is not subjective, it depends on what the questions are.

And how could the questions not be subjective?

If the questions are related to what is endorsed in the constitution, then they are objective insofar as they relate to what it means to be an american (in your case; I’m in europe).

I’m european too, but anyway :

-Furst, the content of the constitution can evolve itself. Once again, how this would be possible if the only people who can modify it are elected only by people who answer “correctly” the questions?

-Second, apart if the test is actually a quizz about the constitution’s text, I stil fail to perceive how it could be objective. How could you determine the correct course of action when there’s an annoying brat crying in a supermarket (as in your first example) on the basis of the constitution?

To all: if you don’t agree with curtailing universal suffrage, then there’s no point in going into the details of defining the test.

Problem is, I think that until now you failed to provide a good reason to consider curtailing universal suffrage at the first place. If you don’t see any yourself, how can you expect us to find one?

One more thing, consider this: you allow your fellow voters to vote in favour of state killings (the death penalty) but you are not willing to allow for a system which only takes away your vote, not your life. I think there’s a twisted reasoning there.

I’m oposed to death penalty, but anyway, this is irrelevant. People sentenced to death aren’t deprived of their life on the basis of their answers to a test, but on the basis of their actions.

Besides, people do accept a system where your vote can be taken away. Convicted felons do lose their right to vote (once again, on the basis of their actions, not their opinions). So I can’t see the contradiction here

[clairobscur]

I fixed the quotes and reposted. Hope some moderator will be willing to delete the previous version.

Thanks in advance.

[Karmagun]

@Zagadka

It is called democracy, or is your entire premise here to take away voting rights from everyone who thinks the death penalty is a good idea?

Thanks for the suggestion.

@clairobscur

How could it evolve with society, since only those who agree with the “correct” answers have a say (through their votes)?

You can’t possibly believe that people are not capable of change other than through voting.

And how could the questions not be subjective?

So that’s like saying that laws are subjective? That the constitution is subjective? What do you mean by subjective? If the questions are laid out by the same lawmakers that pass laws, they are just as ‘subjective’ as laws.

Once again, how this would be possible if the only people who can modify it are elected only by people who answer “correctly” the questions?

Society changes and evolves all the time. No voting licence can change that.

Problem is, I think that until now you failed to provide a good reason to consider curtailing universal suffrage at the first place.

I don’t trust people equally just because they are humans. I agree with giving everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Gex gex has given good reason for not curtailing universal suffrage, and I agree with that, see my last reply.

People sentenced to death aren’t deprived of their life on the basis of their answers to a test, but on the basis of their actions.

Again, I have agreed that thought crime should not be a crime. You could try to read my replies to others as well.

Which still leaves a question. Could we not use deprivation of voting rights as a system of punishment? I don’t mean for people in prison, I mean as an alternative to prison.