Ever heard of the Constitution...

[ironicepitome 0]

Not to be offensive but, stupid people are running the United States of America. With Bla... Blag... Blagoa... The Illinois governer for example. Why does a democratic society with free will use it's free will to elect stupid people who fail US History tests just because they "sweet talk" and "they gave me a pen"! We need a new constutution, simple as that. Your input?

[belfastuniguy 18]

Could also argue why do some people who have freedom of speech actually exercise it? So many questions we could all ask isn't there?

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: ironicepitome Not to be offensive but, stupid people are running the United States of America. With Bla... Blag... Blagoa... The Illinois governer for example. Why does a democratic society with free will use it's free will to elect stupid people who fail US History tests just because they "sweet talk" and "they gave me a pen"! We need a new constutution, simple as that. Your input?quote>

That's pretty harsh to call him "stupid" because he doesn't have a good mind for history. Am I stupid because I was miserable at math and science in school?

Now, stupid because of what he's accused of, I'll give you.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

A new constitution for the US? An intriuging idea, but I believe that it can be better improved by a few amendments, since I think the core structure outlined works pretty well for the government.

Here are my two ideas for Constitutional amendments:

- Abolish judicial review of the Constitution, and instead mandate popular review. The judicial branch can still review other laws, since that power is more easily checked by the Congress.

- Enable popular recall of every government official which is elected or appointed outside of civil service requirements

I am also in support of the Balanced Budget Amendment, since that would keep control runaway deficits.

I am happy to debate these ideas, and I apologize if this is viewed as hijacking this thread. However, I think these three proposals can fix the current situation better than a new Constitution.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: ironicepitome Not to be offensive but, stupid people are running the United States of America. With Bla... Blag... Blagoa... The Illinois governer for example. Why does a democratic society with free will use it's free will to elect stupid people who fail US History tests just because they "sweet talk" and "they gave me a pen"!quote>

No, you're not being offensive. Yes, a lot of politicians are either idiots or bigots, or both. As to how that happens? Well, the majority of people are stupid. And the majority rules...

Having a system in which only people who can prove themselves to be a certain intelligence level can vote is an interesting idea, and it certainly would have its benefits. Actually, it would be a return to the way it was originally, in a way. Originally, only white males who owned property could vote. The intent of this was to prevent stupid people from voting, since back then owning property meant you were successful at life and were likely highly educated. As for why only white males, well back then all blacks were slaves and women never got any higher education so pretty much every "intelligent" person out there was white and male.

Thing is, this got perceived as unfair. And it was, since it worked around stereotypes which, while they held pretty valid back then, with time they became less and less valid. So we gradually made every citizen able to vote. And in doing so, we removed the power from the hands of those who knew what they were doing and gave it to the ignorant masses. In the name of "fairness".

Now, we obviously can't go back to that, since, like so many political philosophies, it's an idea which is great in theory but doesn't really work in actual practice. The inherent flaw here is, who gets to decide what constitutes sufficient intelligence to vote? It breeds elitism and allows those in power to stay in power while keeping out new and progressive ideas. It also silences people and results in the old problem of taxation without representation.

Perhaps it could work better if rather than having sub-intelligent people not be allowed to vote, their votes instead were just counted for less. Or having only the intelligent people vote for senators while everyone continues to vote for representatives (and other positions).

It's not an unappealing idea (to me at least), but implementation and ironing out the details becomes problematic, and it'd probably be more trouble than it's worth. Not to mention that the idiot majority would, of course, vote any such proposal down.

[ironicepitome 0]

Some days, I wish I could buy an island, get my friend who knows EVERYTHING about government, and found my own country that works. I'll call it: Stevtoria like Peter Griffin's Petoria. But alas, that is unfeasable so I'll use my freedom of speech to force a diet on the overweight US governmental systems (aka Sticking it to the Man). And beebs, I mean stupid like... That guy who waits 10 minutes to go after a red light. Or that guy who needs help finding his way to the polls, after he gets to the polling place. Then asks for help on how to press a button or pull a lever. Those guys. I don't know exactly how it goes, but I think when you register to vote you take a test to show both book smarts and practical smarts. If you fail it, DENIED. That simple. Then again those crazy far-left or right groups will probally attempt to shoot it down. And all the stupid people will get behind them.

     George Washington in his Farewell Address warned against political parties, saying that they will divede the nation. Fast-Forward several decades and BOOM! The Civil War. Look at Congress today. NOTHING is getting passed because of one thing: political division. If you didn't tell say a Democrat that a bill was Republican, he'd say it was good if it was good. But the moment you tell him it's Republican. Nope, no vote. We need to get rid of political parties because polititions aren't passing things for the benifit of the people, but to the benifit of their party or lobbyists. And that's probally why the world is in such deep s*** right now.

[belfastuniguy 18]

If you fail it, DENIED. That simple. Then again those crazy far-left or right groups will probally attempt to shoot it down. And all the stupid people will get behind them.quote>

Yeah...but that kinda defeats the purpose of universal suffrage in a democracy. Stupid people voting can be corrected with a decent education system, as the United States has a failing system its no wonder you see people like that voting.

[DanWalker8 3]

ironicepitome: in the words of Will Smith - " welcome to Earth! " get used to people not living in a way you'd approve

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

I'm sorry, the what?

[fukuda 351]

Oh, I thought Universal Suffrage was meant to be Universal...

And all that story of so-called idiotic governors and getting rid of parties is nothing new, it usually leads to fascism

[Patricius Maximus 236]

George Washington in his Farewell Address warned against political parties, saying that they will divede the nation. Fast-Forward several decades and BOOM! The Civil War. Look at Congress today. NOTHING is getting passed because of one thing: political division.quote>

I do agree that a non-partisan legislature may work better than a partisan one, since each candidate is judged individually without party labels. But "bipartisanship" doesn't work, either.

Here are some bills that were "bipartisan", or passed with overwhelming support:

- USA Patriot Act

- Authorization for the use of force in Iraq

- The FISA Amendments

- Troubled Assets Relief Program

- The 2009 Stimulus Bill (not finalized yet)

In my opinion, these 5 bills were some of the worst bills passed or proposed in the last decade. And they were all bipartisan.

Yeah...but that kinda defeats the purpose of universal suffrage in a democracy. quote>

Oh, I thought Universal Suffrage was meant to be Universal... quote>

One thing that has always puzzled me is the widespread delusion that America has universal suffrage. It does not. Have you not heard of something called the voting age? People under 18 are incontrovertibly people, and as such are covered under the definition of "universal".

Universal suffrage literally means that all people in a country can vote. The government can do what it wants with the voting age, but it should not parade around masquerading it as universal.

Stupid people voting can be corrected with a decent education system, as the United States has a failing system its no wonder you see people like that voting. quote>

Agreed that education (actual education, not just public schools) can reduce the number of stupid people in the US. However, no system can completely eliminate anything.

And all that story of so-called idiotic governors and getting rid of parties is nothing new, it usually leads to fascism quote>

I partially agree with you. However, a non-partisan legislature doesn't lead to fascism -- a one- or dominant-party legislature does.

[fukuda 351]

One thing that has always puzzled me is the widespread delusion that America has universal suffrage. It does not. Have you not heard of something called the voting age? People under 18 are incontrovertibly people, and as such are covered under the definition of "universal".

Universal suffrage literally means that all people in a country can vote. The government can do what it wants with the voting age, but it should not parade around masquerading it as universal.

quote>

Universal means that all citizens (not everyone can vote in a country) in a country can vote. You are discriminated by age, but not by person. All citizens will be able to vote when they reach their voting age.

The majority of people under 18 can be easily manipulated (well, a lot over 18 too), and a limit has to be put somewhere, be it 16 or 18.

[Yoman3 5]

I think democracy is inherently flawed due to this defect. As Hamilton said the masses are asses. As for being unfair, frankly some people are better and more successful than others.

[Jasoncw 12,030]

In the US they used to require you to take tests in order to vote, and it was used as a mechanism to discriminate against blacks and others, by making the tests too hard or by asking certain questions.

A test today would be testing what is considered to be a common skillset and common knowledge, however, there is no real "common" knowledge/skill, as different cultures and groups have different knowledge and backgrounds. And even from individual to individual, different people are better at some things rather than others, and if their skills which demonstrate their intelligence are not on the test, then they can't vote.

Standardized tests are not an objective measure of intelligence.

And aside from that, like it's been mentioned, the stupid people should be the ones with the greatest right to vote, as their government has failed them, and they're the ones with the greatest interests at stake.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Agreed that education (actual education, not just public schools) can reduce the number of stupid people in the US. However, no system can completely eliminate anything.quote>

 

"Stupid" and "uneducated" are two different things.  Education can only address one of them.

Definitions aside, the US education system clearly needs to be improved.   and improving the education system would greatly improve the country.

 

 

[City2TheMax 3]

Well yes, the founding fathers considered the fact that the masses were "stupid", which is why at first such measures were put as the Electoral College. It's just that over time elections have become more and more direct (i.e. the 17th amendment, allowing direct election of senators). This is why we think that more stupid people become elected. But it is still better than not being able to elect anyone, and instead end up with rulers that are evil, possibly stupid, and at the same time have immunity from being elected or taken down by the masses, except by violent force. Take Africa as an example (not all of it of course).

I think that the Constitution itself is quite solid, as it has lasted over 300 years. But the reason we have amendments is that we can alter it in ways that fit the current society. Think of the 18th and (I think) 21st amendments, that first took away the ability to buy and sell alcohol, and then repealed that law. At the time society saw prohibition as a great new measure that would improve the nation. Of course this died down, and because of the flexibility of the constitution we were able to make these appropriate changes. Therefore I think that the Constitution we have is perfectly fine.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Universal means that all citizens (not everyone can vote in a country) in a country can vote. You are discriminated by age, but not by person. All citizens will be able to vote when they reach their voting age. quote>

Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Citizens of a country that are under 18 are incontrovertibly citizens. They cannot vote, regardless of whether they will in the future or not. Therefore, it is not universal suffrage.

I think that the Constitution itself is quite solid, as it has lasted over 300 years.quote>

I agree, although it has lasted 220 years, and not 300+.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Universal means that all citizens (not everyone can vote in a country) in a country can vote. You are discriminated by age, but not by person. All citizens will be able to vote when they reach their voting age. quote>

Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Citizens of a country that are under 18 are incontrovertibly citizens. They cannot vote, regardless of whether they will in the future or not. Therefore, it is not universal suffrage.quote>

The problem is that the proposed idea is taking universal suffrage to the extreme.  Granting everyone the right to vote regardless of any such age restriction is asking for serious abuse of the system.  A lot of children are under the (potentially dictatorial) influence of their parents for the majority of their early life.  Granting them the right to vote would effectively just be granting additional votes to the parents, since they would almost assuredly convince their children to vote the same way the parents did.  So instead of a couple having two votes (one per person), you'd effectively be granting them 2 votes plus how many kids they have.  If you're like one family I know, you'd be granting the parents 8 votes.  I don't think anyone wants that.

And while we're on the issue, it's worth noting that the social conservatives tend to be the ones that produce more children.  It's something to think about.

[ironicepitome 0]

ilikehotdogsalot: The US Constitution, the basis for our government.

[ironicepitome 0]

ilikehotdogsalot: The US Constitution, the basis for our government.

[bluemoose 223]

I do not believe that it is the Constitution that is flawed.

Politicians should be honest, intelligent, responsible men and women.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ISSUES?!?!?!?!?!

About political parties...

parties are simply groups of like-minded people who believe in several of the same causes.

(or that's what they should be)

but people have turned this into some big game, and every election, one side wins, and the other lose.

Starting to think that the Greeks had it right with city-states.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

The problem is that the proposed idea is taking universal suffrage to the extreme.  Granting everyone the right to vote regardless of any such age restriction is asking for serious abuse of the system.  A lot of children are under the (potentially dictatorial) influence of their parents for the majority of their early life.  Granting them the right to vote would effectively just be granting additional votes to the parents, since they would almost assuredly convince their children to vote the same way the parents did.  So instead of a couple having two votes (one per person), you'd effectively be granting them 2 votes plus how many kids they have.  If you're like one family I know, you'd be granting the parents 8 votes.  I don't think anyone wants that.quote>

While I do advocate the abolition of the voting age, that it not the exact issue I brought up. The issue was that the US pretends to have universal suffrage, where they do not. It is an issue of hypocrisy, not the voting age. If the US is to have a voting age, people should be honest about it, and not claim that they have universal suffrage, and every citizen can vote. I may be willing to debate the voting age as long as it is in a seperate thread. This is not the place for it.

Starting to think that the Greeks had it right with city-states. quote>

Somehow I have always had a fascination with the idea of modern city-states. If current trends continue (countries getting smaller, more alliances), then by the 22nd century city-states may be the norm across the world. However, that is a big "if".

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

The problem is that the proposed idea is taking universal suffrage to the extreme.  Granting everyone the right to vote regardless of any such age restriction is asking for serious abuse of the system.  A lot of children are under the (potentially dictatorial) influence of their parents for the majority of their early life.  Granting them the right to vote would effectively just be granting additional votes to the parents, since they would almost assuredly convince their children to vote the same way the parents did.  So instead of a couple having two votes (one per person), you'd effectively be granting them 2 votes plus how many kids they have.  If you're like one family I know, you'd be granting the parents 8 votes.  I don't think anyone wants that.quote>

While I do advocate the abolition of the voting age, that it not the exact issue I brought up. The issue was that the US pretends to have universal suffrage, where they do not. It is an issue of hypocrisy, not the voting age. If the US is to have a voting age, people should be honest about it, and not claim that they have universal suffrage, and every citizen can vote. I may be willing to debate the voting age as long as it is in a seperate thread. This is not the place for it.quote>

The US, by most definitions, does indeed have universal suffrage.  Universal suffrage isn't meant to suggest that everyone can vote.  Rather, it means that all adult citizens are allowed to vote, independent of factors such as race, religion, economic or social status, and the like.  Suggesting that the US, or Canada to pick a different country, does not have universal suffrage is taking the words more literally than most do.  Which is perfectly within one's right, but most other people are going to regard it as a pointless argument.

[duack 14]

Somehow I have always had a fascination with the idea of modern city-states. If current trends continue (countries getting smaller, more alliances), then by the 22nd century city-states may be the norm across the world. However, that is a big "if". quote>

Actually the oppisite seems to happen over time. eg, The US used to be a bunch of different states until eventually it became its own country. Also, Europe is really turning into one big country, they now all use the same currency and a European can travel to any member country of the EU without having passports checked.

In regards to the voting thing, IMO voting should be compulsory and here's my logic behind it - 

Generally, younger people don't have much time on their hands because they have work, a life etc. But old people have plenty of time, because theyre retired and have nothing to do. Voting takes hours, so an old person is more likely to spend hours in a boring election room than a young person. For this reason, there are more old people voting compared to young people and we all know old people tend to have archaic views on things and when they elect the government, the whole country slows down its progress. So next time an old person comes to your house and begins meddling about how life was better during world war 2, remember that they're the ones choosing the government.

But if voting was compulsory, then the votes would reflect everyones opinions, and we'd be more likely to elect a less archaic government therefore, progress happens faster. 

Also one good thing is that the recent election has encouraged lots more young people to vote so I guess this means we got a better government this time. Maybe not all people in politics are stupid.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Actually the oppisite seems to happen over time. eg, The US used to be a bunch of different states until eventually it became its own country. Also, Europe is really turning into one big country, they now all use the same currency and a European can travel to any member country of the EU without having passports checked.quote>

Well, the US example is in the 18-19th centuries. I'm talking about 20-21st century trends.

I am aware of the continuing unification of Europe. However, at the same time, more and more parts of a country wish to have their own country, hence the city-state trend. However, at the same time this is going on there is also more unity at an international scale, so beyond simple boundaries it is hard to tell where it is going.

The US, by most definitions, does indeed have universal suffrage.  Universal suffrage isn't meant to suggest that everyone can vote.  Rather, it means that all adult citizens are allowed to vote, independent of factors such as race, religion, economic or social status, and the like.

Suggesting that the US, or Canada to pick a different country, does not have universal suffrage is taking the words more literally than most do.  Which is perfectly within one's right, but most other people are going to regard it as a pointless argument.quote>

I do know of the common definition of "universal suffrage", meaning all "adult" citizens can vote (however you define adult). However, "universal healthcare" is often taken to mean health care for every citizen, not every adult citizen. I am simply applying the definition of "universal" consistently.

If "universal X" means every citizen (like in healthcare), then logically "universal suffrage" would mean "every citizen has suffrage".

Anyway, the argument is mostly pointless. Whatever you call it, citizens under 18 legally cannot vote. However, since the voting age is in the Constitution, I have come to the conclusion that it is within the scope of this discussion. So, moving onward...

What I find interesting is Amendment XXVI of the Constitution:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.quote>

This does not mandate a minimum voting age of 18. Rather, it mandates that the maximum minimum voting age is 18. States can set any voting age they choose, as long as it is 18 or under, so it is partially in the states' hands.

Another interesting thing is the old battle cry "no taxation without representation". Last time I checked, people who are 16 or over can pay income tax if they have taxable income. Yet they cannot vote, and as such, the government does not represent them -- taxation without representation.

This is inconsistent with many Americans claiming to espouse the Declaration of Independence and the principles of the American Revolution. Another hypocritical event in the current US system.

But if voting was compulsory, then the votes would reflect everyones opinions...quote>

Compulsory voting is really a question of representation vs. choice -- which overrides the other.

...and we'd be more likely to elect a less archaic government therefore, progress happens faster.quote>

I agree on that statement. One good thing about younger voters is that they don't have a bias towards the status quo the way older people may do, thus enabling a more rational system.

Another thing I have noticed, both in RL and this thread, is that on the voting age people tend to fall into three groups:

- Raising it (for the reason that 18-x people are dumber than older people

- Keep it at 18 (for various reasons, usually the insinuation that youth are dumber than adults)

- Lower it to some point from 10-18. These people are more open about teenagers voting than younger people

- Abolish the voting age

The last option runs into problems with most people, and creates the most controversy. The point was brought up that younger children (usually lower than 13±3) are under the dictatorial control of their parents, and as such would give the parents an extra vote.

A similar thing could be said before 1865 about slaves being allowed to vote. The slaves are pretty much under the dictatorial control of their owner, and it would just be giving the owner an extra vote. While legal guardianship is somewhat different and more regulated than slavery, the argument is essentially the same.

And I do agree with the argument that allowing slaves to vote would be granting X more votes to the owner.

Let's assume in this scenario that the voting age was abolished. Let's assume in this scenario that parents have control of children's votes by threatening some form of punishment. In this situation, with no voting age, the criteria for legal guardianship would have to be revised. Let's assume in this scenario (there are multiple solutions), that the children can "opt-out" in some form. Then this would legally free them from the control of their parents, and the parental control over voting would be greatly reduced.

If that institution were reformed to remove age as a criterion for legal guardianship, then the voting age could be abolished, and replaced by the state of legal guardianship (i.e. if you are in this state, you cannot vote).

This would not be "universal suffrage" as defined by universal, but it would greatly reduce the risk of giving parents an extra vote for every child.

I am not advocating that exact scenario, but it would be a solution to prevent such a system from occuring. Keep in mind that I am not advocating it, and direct criticism to the scenario, not to me.

- Patricius Maximus

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hym

The US, by most definitions, does indeed have universal suffrage.  Universal suffrage isn't meant to suggest that everyone can vote.  Rather, it means that all adult citizens are allowed to vote, independent of factors such as race, religion, economic or social status, and the like.quote>

Actually, the statement that all adult citizens can vote isn't quite correct, either. In most states if you get convicted of a felony, you lose your right to vote unless the registrar reinstates it.

Though, that makes sense. Do you really want someone who's serving life for having killed several people (for example) voting? I don't.

Originally posted by: duackIn regards to the voting thing, IMO voting should be compulsory and here's my logic behind it -

Generally, younger people don't have much time on their hands because they have work, a life etc. But old people have plenty of time, because theyre retired and have nothing to do. Voting takes hours, so an old person is more likely to spend hours in a boring election room than a young person. For this reason, there are more old people voting compared to young people and we all know old people tend to have archaic views on things and when they elect the government, the whole country slows down its progress. So next time an old person comes to your house and begins meddling about how life was better during world war 2, remember that they're the ones choosing the government.

But if voting was compulsory, then the votes would reflect everyones opinions, and we'd be more likely to elect a less archaic government therefore, progress happens faster.quote>

Nnnn.....no. While there certainly are people who don't vote because they don't have the time, the bigger issue is people simply not giving a damn, or going by the logic that their one vote can't possibly make a difference so it doesn't matter anyway. If they cared, they'd manage to find the time, no matter how busy their schedule was.

And see, that's why I'd rather voting not be compulsory. You can make someone vote, but you can't make them care. People who don't care won't vote responsibly, and if you're not going to be informed and vote responsibly, I'd rather you just stay home. If you're going to vote, do it properly.

Besides, if you don't care and don't vote, you don't get a say in things and instead are subject to the whims of others only - you get the oppression you deserve. So it's not like there's no justice to it. Actually, I believe it was Mark Twain who said:

The consequence of not being involved in politics is being ruled by one's inferiors.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Another interesting thing is the old battle cry "no taxation without representation". Last time I checked, people who are 16 or over can pay income tax if they have taxable income. Yet they cannot vote, and as such, the government does not represent them -- taxation without representation.

This is inconsistent with many Americans claiming to espouse the Declaration of Independence and the principles of the American Revolution. Another hypocritical event in the current US system.quote>

The general legal consensus is that minors are not yet mature enough to know what's best for them all the time, hence why they are still the responsibility of their parents. Ergo, they can't vote for themselves but are nevertheless "represented" indirectly by their parents' votes, since parents will vote with their children's interests in mind.

Not flawless logic, but it does make some sense, and given the maturity issue I would consider it unwise to lower the voting age below 18. It's an adult privilege. Simple as that.

[hym 358]

This does not mandate a minimum voting age of 18. Rather, it mandates that the maximum minimum voting age is 18. States can set any voting age they choose, as long as it is 18 or under, so it is partially in the states' hands.quote>

Yes, voting age is technically set by the states, but on major issues such as this, they tend to follow federal guidelines.  (The drinking age is another example of this.)  Unless something major happens, they aren't going to deviate from the federal standard as there isn't really any profitable reason for them to do it.

Another interesting thing is the old battle cry "no taxation without representation". Last time I checked, people who are 16 or over can pay income tax if they have taxable income. Yet they cannot vote, and as such, the government does not represent them -- taxation without representation.quote>

When the colonists said "no taxation without representation," they were demanding what is known as direct representation, not the right to vote of every single individual who had to pay a tax.  The US has direct representation, so the goal of the colonists has been fulfilled.

Additionally, if one is concerned that taxing a 16 year old violates the goals of the colonists, there is a very simple solution that doesn't involve the headaches of changing the voting age: don't tax those who aren't legally eligible to vote.

I agree on that statement. One good thing about younger voters is that they don't have a bias towards the status quo the way older people may do, thus enabling a more rational system.quote>

There are several problems with this.  First, it is not necessarily true that younger individuals do not share the same biases that previous generations possess; it's a decision based on insufficient knowledge.  Studies conducted in the 1990's on teenagers indicated that there was a significant ideology split between teenagers and their Baby Boomer parents.  The research suggested that Gen Y might be interested in returning to many of the social values and ideologies of their grandparents. 

Second, change is not always better.  It is possible for the status quo to be the more rational system.

Let's assume in this scenario that the voting age was abolished. Let's assume in this scenario that parents have control of children's votes by threatening some form of punishment. In this situation, with no voting age, the criteria for legal guardianship would have to be revised. Let's assume in this scenario (there are multiple solutions), that the children can "opt-out" in some form. Then this would legally free them from the control of their parents, and the parental control over voting would be greatly reduced.quote>

That's a lot of assumptions that may or may not be anywhere near reflecting reality.  Also, what exactly are they opting out of?

Additionally, the form of parental control over voting that I was talking about had absolutely nothing to do with punishing them for voting "the wrong way."  It is an inescapable fact that nearly all children are under the ideological tutelage of their parents/guardians.  Many of us have had our values shaped by our parents in one way or another.  The problem is that a lot of children don't think for themselves, so if you grant them the right to vote, they'll vote how their parents have told them they should vote.  Because of the trust bound that accompanies most children, they won't see their parents' actions as being coercive or infringing on their rights; rather they'll think that they're doing the right thing because "Mommy and Daddy said it's my responsibility to vote" and they want to make Mommy and Daddy happy.  No matter how you want to look at the issue, the potential for serious abuse of the system is rampant.

Very few things, including "inalienable rights" can be taken to the logical extreme.  Often the end result of doing so is worse than accepting that there are some inconsistencies.  You usually have to draw a limit somewhere.

[Blazerhawk 162]

My take is people here in the US get bombarded with trash for 18 months leading up to the election. People like myself decide not to watch any political material and are thus uninformed (I did because I couldn't vote). These uniformed people go to the polls and vote for the members of one party. The Electoral College is now merely a formality because it casts all votes for one candidate or the other. Thus the liar politician who understands this idea says just what the people want to hear (before they go crazy). He gets elected and does just enough to get by at the next election. He does this until a "better" performer knocks him down.

America needs to do something about the length of its political campaigns. It makes no sense for 18 months of this stuff. Limit it to one year, please!!!

[Patricius Maximus 236]

America needs to do something about the length of its political campaigns. It makes no sense for 18 months of this stuff. Limit it to one year, please!!! quote>

Actually, it's more like 20 months. I agree that campaigns are too long in the US. What is the use of campaigning more than a year before the first primary? The Democratic Party (don't know about the Republicans) has tried to limit this by setting limits on the earliness of primaries. It is mostly under control, but now they have many states that have their primaries as early as possible (February 5).

One possible solution is to reduce presidential terms to 2 years, and increase the term limit to 4 terms (2*4=. This would cut the length by half, since obviously presidents can't spend their whole term campaigning.

My take is people here in the US get bombarded with trash for 18 months leading up to the election. People like myself decide not to watch any political material and are thus uninformed (I did because I couldn't vote).quote>

I only started paying attention to the campigns in any serious fashion in December 2007, about a month before the first primary. That cuts down the length of my exposure to 11 months, which is all you need to be informed.