<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Dec 31 2006, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd rather have 10,000,000 people who actually know the issues vote than 110,000,000 rednecks who vote based on who bill o'reilly tells them to vote for.</div>If you really think a test that you described would help the Democratic vote, you need your head checked. I really don't think the minority vote would do too well with a test like yours. Also, there's a lot of little things that don't make sense about it. When do they test these people? How many people are actually going to take a day off from work or whatever to do this? Your test wouldn't do what you want, which is stopping people blindly voting for what the media tells them. A person can be very uneducated and still know what they want in a politician by knowing the issues. The war on Iraq honestly affects very few people compared to an issue like the economy. The system you are suggesting is flawed, short-sighted, and no one would support it. Whatever you think, though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Jan 1 2007, 11:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When do they test these people? How many people are actually going to take a day off from work or whatever to do this? Your test wouldn't do what you want, which is stopping people blindly voting for what the media tells them. A person can be very uneducated and still know what they want in a politician by knowing the issues. The war on Iraq honestly affects very few people compared to an issue like the economy. The system you are suggesting is flawed, short-sighted, and no one would support it. Whatever you think, though.</div>They can have an electronic system on voting day to enter the building. Take a like 5 minute timed test and if you don't score high enough, you can't enter.I don't know why you talk about 'the test wouldn't do what I want'. I want a more informed voting group, that's what I want. How wouldn't this help.I don't give a sh*t if no one supports it. People didn't support freedom of slaves in the South, but what now?And the test isn't like an IQ test. It'd be a test over current events and such that pertains to voting issues.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ Jan 2 2007, 12:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They can have an electronic system on voting day to enter the building. Take a like 5 minute timed test and if you don't score high enough, you can't enter.I don't know why you talk about 'the test wouldn't do what I want'. I want a more informed voting group, that's what I want. How wouldn't this help.I don't give a sh*t if no one supports it. People didn't support freedom of slaves in the South, but what now?And the test isn't like an IQ test. It'd be a test over current events and such that pertains to voting issues.</div>That works for people that have five minutes, but what about when voting places have lines backed up for hours already? It's not a very efficient system.I am talking about what tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wanted, not you. That is why I quoted him. If you want more informed voters, it might work. I don't really think it would, though. It would mostly just discourage people from voting. People that don't have time to sit in lines for hours wouldn't vote, period. You yourself said people should vote, so I don't know why you would want that. Also, chances are people could just study for the test. In that case, they would only know about the issues on the test. They could still make an uninformed vote.The difference between freedom for slaves of the south and a test to see whether you are "informed" is that one supports freedom and the other discourages it. Why you would want less people to vote (probably mostly disadvantaged people)... I don't know.I realize it's not a straight-up IQ test, but that doesn't matter. Someone can not know what Iraq, the Dow-Jones, what GDP is, etc., and still have a good vote. It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out what you want. If you only care about a few issues and you vote based on those, I don't see the problem voting like that. Precedence has ruled tests like this unconstitutional, anyway. I know you probably don't care too much, but that is the case.
sure there would be some people with good votes ruled out but overall the people who couldn't answer a couple extremely simple questions shouldn't be allowed to voteThey wouldn't be able to study for it as nobody but the polling officers would know what it was before hand (it would be leaked I'm sure, but not very widespread)The only way people would be able to study would be (god forbid) reading a newspaper and if somebody read the news then they would have an educated vote.Of course the system would never go for this because it's designed to make people not think for themselves, but I personally don't want some retard in wyoming to have a vote that counts the same as mine (well, actually people in wyoming's votes count four times as much as mine but that's a different story......)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Dec 30 2006, 02:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>IQ is no longer done as a number in the official IQ tests, it's done as a percentile (I'm in the top .01%, biotch!), but I think that the equivalent of 115 (top 25%) in IQ would be a decent indicator. The only downside is that IQ tests aren't perfect right now - my uncle tested as a genius as well and he is literally retarded.EDIT: The number is "intelligence quotient", it's just the IQ test has been largely phased out by similar tests that do it in percentiles</div>Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 110 - 115 around average? Why wouldn't you let average people vote? They are majority and isn't that what democracy is? And who says the most important issues are Iraq? MAYBE MAYBE the only way too add that is spot checking (like every 10th person) and give hem a few questions.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Jan 2 2007, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>sure there would be some people with good votes ruled out but overall the people who couldn't answer a couple extremely simple questions shouldn't be allowed to voteThey wouldn't be able to study for it as nobody but the polling officers would know what it was before hand (it would be leaked I'm sure, but not very widespread)The only way people would be able to study would be (god forbid) reading a newspaper and if somebody read the news then they would have an educated vote.Of course the system would never go for this because it's designed to make people not think for themselves, but I personally don't want some retard in wyoming to have a vote that counts the same as mine (well, actually people in wyoming's votes count four times as much as mine but that's a different story......)</div>I kinda disagree with you there. I understand how you're upset that you think people are making stupid votes, but there are probably people that think you're making a stupid vote as well. The country started out by making the electoral college which really limits the value of a person's vote. I think that was a really stupid move that keeps us from really being democratic. Look at all these countries we police. We say, "No no, you voted for the dictator. We'll put this guy in so that you can be more democratic like us." You see where I'm going with this? We won't necessarily have a dictator, but restricting votes based on intelligence makes this government an oligarchy (rule by the few), which in my opinion is not what America is about.Maybe... I'm not so sure. This is purely hypothetical, but that is a possible problem if they are easy questions.That may be true. I still am not so sure. One could be pretty educated on affairs here in America and still not really know where Iraq is, for example. Once again, purely hypothetical, but I think it would take away votes that aren't necessarily bad ones.Well, that's not really what I was talking about. Back when black people still had problems with civil rights, they would give tests to check if people could read or whatever. Obviously, the black people were far less educated, thus few black votes were actually made and whoever the white people wanted was voted in. It was ruled unconstitutional to do so any longer. Now, black people aren't as notably uneducated comparatively in this time, but it still would be a problem. The rednecks you mentioned earlier might not be so upset about it, but I guarantee you that Jesse Jackson and the NAACP would be all over your ass.I hate the value of the vote in America today. I don't know where you live (Cali, perhaps), but obviously I live in Texas. Now, the number of electoral votes Wyoming (3) gets is far less than Texas (34). Assuming I vote for the winning candidate (and it matters in the end decision), my vote is technically worth a buttload more than someone from Wyoming's. Then again, if I vote for the loser, the vote is typically worthless. Sometimes in the past, electoral votes have been split between the candidates. So let's say that about half of the votes in Texas go to a Democrat and the other half goes to a Republican. Maybe there's also 1 or 2 percent or whatever to the Independent. Then the votes would go 16 and 16 to the Republican and the Democrat, 2 to the Independent. This is just a poor example. Many countries do this so that everyone's vote matters. America doesn't. I don't bother voting because the Republican will always win in Texas. If I vote for the Republican, the Democrat, or the Independent, it doesn't matter. The Republican will always win here. So what's the point?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CRaZy_KiCkz @ Jan 3 2007, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>who cares if kids drink while being under 21. they are just having fun, what else is there to do</div>Get a job... play video games... normal things. Getting drunk not only destroys brain cells, but it makes you stupid enough to have paul wall as an avatar haha (jk) but it also makes you do stupid stuff. For instance Horizon's quarterback last year, Dax I think was his name, got drunk and rammed his car into someone's house. What happens, crazy kickz, when someone rams a car into your house while drunk? It doesn happen.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ginger Jesus @ Jan 3 2007, 11:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Get a job... play video games... normal things. Getting drunk not only destroys brain cells, but it makes you stupid enough to have paul wall as an avatar haha (jk) but it also makes you do stupid stuff. For instance Horizon's quarterback last year, Dax I think was his name, got drunk and rammed his car into someone's house. What happens, crazy kickz, when someone rams a car into your house while drunk? It doesn happen.</div>You can play video games and get a job while still being a drinker. I do, and I have.Drinking and driving is not something anyone should do, so what does it have to do with being under 21? It's not like you're magically able to drink and drive when you turn 21.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Jan 4 2007, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You can play video games and get a job while still being a drinker. I do, and I have.Drinking and driving is not something anyone should do, so what does it have to do with being under 21? It's not like you're magically able to drink and drive when you turn 21.</div>Nobody should EVER drink and drive. I never said that. 21 is the age America has generally chosen that kids are (hopefully) mentally mature enough to drink responsibly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ginger Jesus @ Jan 4 2007, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nobody should EVER drink and drive.</div>I'm glad that you agree with me. So like I said, your argument applies to everyone, not just those under 21. Give me a reason why it is acceptable to drink over 21, but not under. I'm talking about a reason that I shouldn't drink, not some imaginary person.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I hate the value of the vote in America today. I don't know where you live (Cali, perhaps), but obviously I live in Texas. Now, the number of electoral votes Wyoming (3) gets is far less than Texas (34). Assuming I vote for the winning candidate (and it matters in the end decision), my vote is technically worth a buttload more than someone from Wyoming's. Then again, if I vote for the loser, the vote is typically worthless. Sometimes in the past, electoral votes have been split between the candidates. So let's say that about half of the votes in Texas go to a Democrat and the other half goes to a Republican. Maybe there's also 1 or 2 percent or whatever to the Independent. Then the votes would go 16 and 16 to the Republican and the Democrat, 2 to the Independent. This is just a poor example. Many countries do this so that everyone's vote matters. America doesn't.</div>yeah, I'm talking about how the voting is skewed proportionally to population (because of the senate electoral votes). Based on population, if CA gets 55 electoral votes than wyoming should get approximately 0.8. Conversely, if wyoming gets 3 electoral votes, california should get 206 based on population. Since there are 68.75 times as many californians as wyoming residents, and we only get 18.333333 times as many votes, then per capita, a wyoming resident's vote counts about 3.75 times as much as a californian. This is what allows a situation like 2000 (the guy with the most votes losing) to happen and it's annoying to say the least.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cb4fan @ Jan 2 2007, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 110 - 115 around average? Why wouldn't you let average people vote?</div>100 is average. IQ is mental age divided by actual age multiplied by 100. But IQ would be a terrible way to do it because it has nothing to do with the issues. A lot of times high IQ and knowledge of the issues overlap (IE me) but there is little correlation and letting people vote based on whether they can put shapes together is a terrible idea
Smoking: I sort of agree. It's a terrible habit but I don't think your a pussy if you smoke for stress, I think your making excusesUnderage Drinking: I don't support any kind of drinking. Why damage our brains to have fun for a night and then feel terrible the next day?Abortion: I only support it for rape victims. Otherwise, just have the baby and give it to an adoption agency (Not trying to sound insensitive)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wolf @ Jan 4 2007, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Smoking: I sort of agree. It's a terrible habit but I don't think your a pussy if you smoke for stress, I think your making excusesUnderage Drinking: I don't support any kind of drinking. Why damage our brains to have fun for a night and then feel terrible the next day?</div>Right. Pussies makes excuses lol Hence...Exactly on drinking.And Justice, it's better to wait till 21 to drink so your body has developed more and has more time to build a healthy liver so you can take longer to destroy it. That's why the legal drinking age is 21 anyway. So the body has time to develop.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ginger Jesus @ Jan 5 2007, 01:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And Justice, it's better to wait till 21 to drink so your body has developed more and has more time to build a healthy liver so you can take longer to destroy it. That's why the legal drinking age is 21 anyway. So the body has time to develop.</div>Oh give me a break. The liver has to be healthy long long long before that. I don't see any reason why you would need to wait until 21 to drink. If it's 12 year olds banging down 40s that's one thing, but I think a 16 or 17 year old could handle alcohol just fine. Regardless, it's a completely arbitrary age. I'm not any more able to handle alcohol than I was a year ago (I mean, if you ignore tolerance) than I am now. I will not be any different in a month when I turn 21, either.
