Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna  1 Why would you think that a 16 yr old would not be as informed or moreso than an 18 yr old? If anything, the number of uninformed voters is indication that age requirement doesn't result in a more informed electorate.
2 I think any attempt to mandate "educated" voters would be quite biased. You want voters to understand that universal healthcare isn't free. Well, it is free, to the consumer. Which is what most people mean by "free." Some people assert that it's more costly in taxes... but this is a hotly disputed assertion. What one person thinks all voters should know, is not what someone else thinks all voters should know. I could say that all voters should know about the economic history of the U.S. and the history of corporate deregulation (which I think they should). Someone else would say that's biased... you're never going to get neutral informational education, when you're talking about politics.
3 Do y'all know the song "Eve of Destruction"? This thread reminds me of it. They're old enough to kill, but not for voting...
I used to have a line from that song in my sig. Maybe I should bring it back.
|
I didn't say the exam needed to explain specifically that universal healthcare isn't free -- I was using that as an example of a position I believe comes from a shockingly prevalent ignorance of the reality that NOTHING is free -- SOMEONE is paying for that healthcare, and that someone IS you, even if you're no longer writing a check at the point of service.
The types of questions I'd support being on an exam are very basic -- Things like, "What is the primary source of the government's funding?" A) Citizens Pay Taxes to Fund Programs OR B) The Government Prints Money When it Needs Funds OR C) Uncle Sam Writes A Big Check At the Holidays.
If you don't understand that EVERY government program is financed BY THE PEOPLE (i.e. YOU), then you shouldn't be voting, IMO.
Another good question would be something like "Does the Constitution Set Limits on the Government, or the People?" A) Government B) People C) Both or D) Neither. I think a lot of people believe the Constitution tells citizens and state governments what we can and can't do, when really, it was meant to limit the federal government's power.
I'm just advocating trying to ensure people have a basic understanding of the way our country works, not trying to ensure they think a certain way. To use universal health coverage again as an example: If you understand that socialized healthcare isn't free and want to support it anyway because you believe everyone should be covered even if it might mean making some sacrifices, I can respect that (I disagree, but I respect it). Or if you've seen numbers that indicate that taxes won't go up because certain other costs will be offset, and support universal healthcare because you think it will be a more efficient way of managing care in our nation, then I can also respect that point of view (though I disagree), because it shows an understanding of how government funding works.
But if you think "FREE HEALTHCARE!" and vote for the candidates who promote it believing that healthcare will ACTUALLY be free, i.e. no one will pay for it at all anymore and everyone will magically have great health care AND more money in their pockets, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, and I think you should be prevented from voting. Likewise, if you think the Constitution is all about regulating people's religion, guns or bigotry .... you should not vote. (The Constitution is intended to prevent GOVERNMENT from limiting OR engaging in those things .... not the people.)
:
There are certainly issues, but we don't have to worry about our insurer denying a transplant.
