Who Should Have the Right to Vote?

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?:












Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

Continue Reading

In all seriousness, here’s a passage from the piece.

Imagine the elitism, the snobbery, the condescending mindset of the writer. How much better they are than you.

I say ol’ chap is that a white, working class voter who couldn’t afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated at a Leftist university? And he is Christian!? I will not stand for this!

And where exactly is your well-articulated criticism? All I see here is an accusation of snobbery and elitism (i.e., ad hominem) (boy, you people can’t reason today huh!?), an underhanded way of admitting that yes, I’m smarter than you are and can articulate my position better than you. Gifs and one-liners might work on Tumblr, generally speaking, but it won’t work to push back against an idea like the one I suggested. A White, working class voter doesn’t need hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend college. Ever heard of scholarships? Grants? Financial Aid? “Indoctrinated” at a Leftist university? Because suddenly they can’t choose to go to a Christian university that, at the very least, helps them to articulate their positions better? 

Here’s the thing, I know a number of such Christians and not surprisingly, they aren’t the “abortion is murder,” “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims” sort of folks. Go figure! I wonder what’s the difference between them and the Bible Belt idiot that gets to make a decision that affects millions of other people. I’m not a Christian by the way; I’m far from one. 

What a shame you use a gift showing an actress that’s far more intelligent than you are, one that, should she disagree with me, would articulate her reasoning much better than you have. She’s also college educated, so perhaps there’s nothing curious about that coming from someone who thinks there’s a such thing as “Leftist universities” that “indoctrinate” people after they spend “thousands of dollars” out of their own pockets. If this is how you disagree, you don’t deserve to vote! Thanks for being a good example of the kind of person I’m looking to exclude from the voting process. I’m definitely an elite and I’ll be as snob as I like once I’m accused of it for no good reason at all. Never mind that your snippet from my post contains important hyperlinks. My my! How you overlook details to make a failed point. 

It feels so good to read this in conjunction with the original post.

Oh, and to be clear, no one has a right to vote. It is a privilege, and no one deserves it.

It is not ad hominem to say you are a caricature of Leftism elitism and snobbery, as you admit. It is factual. Whether or not it hurts your feelings is beside the point.

@philosophycorner are we also stripping the right to vote from non-whites who have not completed a degree program too? I mean, since they’re uneducated as well, they clearly aren’t smart enough to decide policy or vote for representatives.

remember when the post reconstruction south implemented literacy tests in an attempt to disenfranchise people based on race and secure their party’s hegemony in the region? hmmm

new ideology: nobody is allowed to vote anymore. all policy will be decided by chicken-based augury, as in rome.

It is not ad hominem to say you are a caricature of Leftism elitism and snobbery, as you admit. It is factual. Whether or not it hurts your feelings is beside the point.

Well it sort of is. But only if you are saying they are wrong because they are a caricature of Leftist elitism and snobbery.

If you are calling them a caricature of Leftist elitism and snobbery because you think they are laughably wrong, then it is fine.

They seem to have forgotten the purpose of universal franchise in a modern representative democracy. Legitimacy.

“These people voted for somebody I didn’t like, lets fucking remove their right to vote”

-The OP summed up

Donald Trump graduated from university with a Bachelor of Science in economics.  If the article author’s perspective is that a university education would provide the reasoning skills to prevent decisions like the one’s Trump makes, I would say that assertion is clearly called into question.

And the author’s literacy test screening solution wouldn’t work.  You can’t chose arbitrary topics and expect people to have the background knowledge to give a well-reasoned argument on that topic.  Even well-educated people would be incapable of meeting that standard if the topic is on a subject that they don’t happen to know about.  The topics that the author has given as examples are ones that they assume the demographic they are attempting to screen out would have an opinion on, but that’s not guaranteed.  The author chose those topics based on demographic stereotypes.  The test fails to meet basic standards to provide a consistent basis for determination.

The solution to this issue is to give some articles on the topic and have people reason out answers based on the information provided.  However, this runs the risk of screening out some of the minority groups that the author seems to advocate for, such as those in poor, primarily black, inter-urban locations where the education systems suffer from frequent under-funding.  Reading and comprehending potentially brand new information, then constructing a well-reasoned argument in what is likely a timed test scenario isn’t an easy thing to do even without a clear educational disadvantage, and never mind if you are an individual with test anxiety or an immigrant who may not have a full grasp of English yet.

That’s not even to say that being able to give a well-reasoned argument is actually the real goal being presented by the author, who already has firm beliefs on what an acceptable response on the topics would be.  There’s no point in even attempting to construct a well reasoned argument that contradicts the author’s views, because the author would assume that any answer that contradict’s theirs has clearly ignored the points that make the Author’s answer the correct one, and as such is not a well-reasoned argument.  If there was a well-reasoned argument against the Author’s views that the author would accept, then there would be no point in implementing the screening to begin with.

So what we are left with isn’t a test on reasoning, but knowing and memorizing the answers that the test judges would accept.  A person is easily capable of memorizing an argument, even if they don’t believe the argument is correct.  So you get a bunch of people memorizing and writing the answers to the test, just like in grade school, and after getting their passing grades they get to go on their merry way and vote however they please.  Going on to get a university education does not guarantee that a person will develop the sort of mindset that the author desires, as the many Republican politicians holding university degrees would attest.  The screening test is an act of futility that would likely just get someone sued if someone tried to implement and enforce it. 

Isn’t it telling that Trump spoke more like a Democrat when he was younger? Maybe his senility has outstripped his education? I’m not sure where he’s gone wrong, but if Trump were able to articulate the reasons for his position on the gun issue and other issues, he would certainly qualify. As it stands, given how he clumsily bumbles on and speaks in fifth grade language, he probably wouldn’t qualify. Read my most recent response for clarification on what I mean by educated

As for the test, like others, you’ve missed the point. The questions I put forth aren’t set in stone. They wouldn’t necessarily end up on such an exam. The only reason I used them as an example is because of recent events. It’s something that people on all sides should be able to talk about and if they are sold on a perspective, they should be able to articulate why. 

Going back to the original post, I stated that it’s not about the “correct” answers,so yet again, you missed my point. How can it be about memorization if they would be short essay answers and if the second part of the exam would involve an oral presentation on a relevant political topic? The notion that the average voter doesn’t have or doesn’t have to have the background knowledge to answer such questions and articulate their positions is precisely what’s gotten us here. So it doesn’t matter that you’re one-issue voter, it doesn’t matter that you vote based on hatred for your political opponents, and it certainly doesn’t matter that you can’t defend your views. Opinions are sacred and that’s the end of it; go into the booth and vote to your heart’s content, I guess.

I also stated that it doesn’t matter if you’re for or against gun control. I stated that it’s not about providing responses that align with my own. I stated in another response that I would be far from this! I wouldn’t want to oversee this process, especially not without collaborators who can provide checks and balances of my authority. So far from being a despot who qualifies only people who agree with my views, I am most certainly allowing for disagreement, but not just any disagreement. 

I want well-articulated disagreement; I want to understand why the line is drawn at AR-15s and not elsewhere, and I want to understand why the right to bear arms implies the right to own a semiautomatic firearm. Furthermore, I want to understand why they think it’s a good idea to defund education, pull out of the Paris Climate agreement, and why it’s a good idea to defund Planned Parenthood (despite the fact that a small percentage of their services involve abortion). If you vote in an election that affects millions of people, many of whom you disagree with, you owe them n  answer or, at the very least, articulation as to why you consistently infringe on their rights – rights that are far more important than the right to vote.