Republicans are allowed to vote because not allowing people to vote is foolish, unfair, and counterproductive. I want everyone to vote, including chuckleheads.
I believe it was the SF author Robert Heinlein that proposed making a potential voter solve a simple equation (i.e., 3x + 7 = 31, solve for x) before the voting machine would unlock, showing that the voter had at least some cognitive abilities.
the answer is 8
A fun difference between dictatorial oligarchy and democratic oligarchy is that in the latter you get to blame your neighbors for voting in the wrong oligarch.
On the other hand, an unlimited franchise confers a kind of legitimacy and moral authority that your oligarchy can never have. In America, we call this “the consent of the governed.”
What about me. I own a condo, so arguably I don’t own any real estate. I own whatever space and objects that are within my walls, floor and ceiling, but I own no land whatsoever.
I’m especally concerned about this since there seems an increasing desire in the right to take my birthright citizenship as well. Maybe they’ll cancel each other out.
Hey, if you want to go there, I’ll happily go there with you. I bet elections don’t turn out as you hope though.
He also proposed an “improving the breed” alternative where, after the voter has had a certain period of time to solve the equation, the door automatically opens on an . . . empty voting booth.
One could also argue that all the complaints about the oligarchy we supposedly have is because the masses are easily fooled. So it’s all about which oligarchy you prefer. An oligarchy of the wealthy corporations and billionaires, or an oligarchy of the educated upper middle class?
As a general note, PPP has a history of putting out polls with surprisingly high percentages of people - both left and right wingers - professing to believe in ridiculous and fantastical conspiracy theories (e.g. Lizard People controlling the world). So it’s wise to be a bit cautious in accepting their poll results.
I assume you meant this fascetiously, but it brings up a valid point.
Apparently, under Islamic law, anyone born of a Muslim father is considered a Muslim, regardless of what religion he or she actually believes in or practices. So under Islamic law Obama is a Muslim apostate, rather than a Christian. I believe this is pretty well known in conservative circles. So it’s possible that some percentage of the respondents to that poll meant this aspect, rather than thinking Obama was a practicing Muslim.
I wonder how many liberals think Obama is a Christian. Probably few would think he’s a Muslim, but I bet quite a few believe him to be a closet atheist or agnostic.
Those polls are all bullshit, the only thing people see is “Please tell us how much you hate Obama” and the answer is always “a lot”. There is zero incentive to pick the right answer, you are better off using them to let off steam. I bet you if they started giving 100 bucks for giving the right answer the poll would look completely different.
So society is collapsing because of widespread ignorance.
What are we doing about it?
A large amount of ignorant people in any society is a problem. Eliminating their influence from the political system doesn’t solve that problem. That’s just putting a band-aid on one symptom. The large amount of ignorant people still exist even though they have no political voice which means all of the other negative effects of ignorance are still occurring. All disenfranchisement did was make it easier to ignore the problem.
The real solution is to educate these people so they’re no longer ignorant. But that takes a lot of effort. If the negative effects of ignorant people voting forces society to address the wider problem of too much ignorance, then it’s an overall good. It’s a prod to force society into doing something that’s difficult but necessary.
We should be eliminating ignorance not trying to work around it.
Conservatives think that disenfranchising the ignorant would ensure a conservative victory, since ignorant = liberal.
Liberals think that disenfranchising the ignorant would ensure a liberal victory, since ignorant = conservative.
What would probably really happen if the ignorant were denied the right to vote is that both conservatives and liberals would be disappointed when their expected landslide electoral victory failed to materialize and it instead turned out to be more or less a draw.
I personally think many of our presidents are closet atheists but in order to play the political game you have to put on a veneer of religious belief.
Many of the same Republicans who used to obsess over Obama’s Christian pastor are now convinced he is Muslim. I think Colin Powell had the best response- if he is, so what?
The question is asked of people who self-identify as Republicans. How many people who are essentially conservative in their political views are reluctant to make such an declaration? If those people are not part of the sample, is it not more likely that the “batshit quotient” will rise?
That’s my view. Although I won’t support people who lie about religious faith. Such a person will lie about anything.
I’m going to say this is factually wrong. My understanding of Islam is that nobody is a hereditary Muslim. The only way for a person to be a Muslim is to make the Shahada - the declaration of faith. If you haven’t done that, you’re not a Muslim regardless of what religion your ancestors were.
But as everyone knows Muslim’s always lie, so you can’t just ask them straight out. What you have to do is ask a Muslim whether Obama would say that he is a Muslim.
Alright, alright, we have to allow Republicans to vote, even if they believe up is down and ignorance is knowledge.
Why aren’t we allowed to just kill them outright?
I voted for him and I agree, at least I HOPE he’s a closet atheist or agnostic.