Modern Civics

How?

Sometimes, but not always. But regardless, my solution to poorly worded, or just misunderstood wording is to make sure, prior to voting, that everyone knows what the wording means. Clarifying the language on the ballot for one person may make it more obtuse to someone else. Relying on the ballot to explain itself is only going to continue the problem.

Not really. But if the language on the ballot is really going to be a problem, the polling place can simply provide free interpreters.Jon

Some people have very weird ways of understanding certain words or phrases. Reading through EvC should make that abundantly clear. And how would those interpreters operate? Would they stand in the voting booth with you? Wouldn't that open it up to quite legitimate claims of pressure or collusion?So they woiuld have to sit away from the booths, at like a table or something. Sounds good. But how would they be sure you understand what the language says? Wouldn't they have to ask you if you understand by giving you some sort of test?And this is only for a simple referendum on the building of a garbage dump. How are we to make sure people are actually aware of what their vote means when they vote for an alderman or a senator or the president?To make it clear, I don't want to prohibit anyone from voting. I just want to make sure that voters are aware of what they're voting for, be it a referendum, or the stated goals of a candidate. People will still be allowed to vote for person A because he's a "Christian" or because she's on "my party's ticket."I'm just a little tired of people who vote because it gets rammed down our throats that "everyone should vote." They don't care enough to even learn the candidates names, or if they can name them, have no idea what they stand for. Then they complain when the government does something they don't like.We can't get rid of stupid voters, or voters with whom I have a legitimate disagreement...but we can get rid of uninformed voters. And I think we should.

That is why I mentioned residency for those incapable or unwilling to hold the title of citizen. But would you care to mention the rights I have overlooked? Show me how or STFU. Too bad it already exists in the test that immigrants must pass to become US citizens. Silly Americans. Wow someone who didn’t take me out of context and strawman to shit what I originally said, I didn’t think that was possible around here. Good job.

Show you how what? I don't understand. Do you not know your own position, the position you've just articulated in this thread?I don't understand how you can say "I don't want to fundamentally change what it means to be an American, but hey, I just had a great idea - let's fundamentally change what it means to be an American!"

Well, to be pedantic, there's the Bill of Rights...Anything that requires a social security number could be construed as a right for being a citizen...such as social security.I guess you could redefine everyone in the US as a resident (though people who live here but aren't citizens woudl then needto be redefined) and say that a citizen is just a resident who can vote...but that seems like taking the long way around, when you can just have a simple test for all citizens who wish to vote.

But Jos's not an uninformed voter. He knows the city wants to put a dump behind his house. He knows that he does not want this to happen. He knows there will be a vote taken. He knows where the voting will be held and for how long the polls will be open. He's even brought the proper paperwork with him for registering.Jos is as informed as he needs to be to vote on the issue in question. Now, granted, he may not be as informed as you want him to be, but why the hell should Jos have to jump through hoops just to soothe your ruptured ass?Jon

It's just one more voice lost.

That's not clear. For example, when the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." it doesn't go on to say: "Oh, but Congress can do those things so long as the victims aren't citizens, it can prohibit their free exercise like billy-o".There are some references in the B.o.R. to "the people", but I have never seen that this is interpreted as citizens only, and I'm fairly sure it isn't. I'm not a citizen, but I have an S.S.N.

Then he should be able to quickly answer the question on whether voting for question 1 will approve or ban the dump.I'm looking out for Jose here. He's informed, he knows what he wants, and he's willing and able to do what he can to stop it. Wouldn't it be a shame if he voted incorrectly because the question was worded imperfectly, or referenced something he wasn't sure of?And this is all a rather simplified scenario. In the case of voting for a candidate, with all the confusion and inconsistency that a human being entails, it would be nice if Jose decides not to vote for a candidate who wants to do-away with the referendum policy that allows Jose to decide where a dump goes, simply because he's unaware that the candidate has proposed to do so in a single town-hall meeting on the other side of town, but not in the town-hall meeting on Jose's side of town, which he went to as a dutiful and fully informed citizen.

Well, how about the case of the defense bill that President Obama signed. It allows for unlimited detainment of anyone suspected of being a terrorist. This includes American citizens, though Obama has promised to never, ever do that to citizens. (Though this has no bearing whatsoever on whether the next president will detain American citizens indefinitely.)So, the assumption then, is that Obama sees no problem with detaining, indefinitely, a non-citizen who is suspected of being a terrorist.Another example is running for office. You have to be a citizen to run for political office. In fact, you have to be born a citizen to run for President.These are off the top of my head, I'm sure someone else could list more things that are granted to citizens but not anyone else living in America besides simply voting. I was not aware of this. Is it because, by working in America, you are contributing to SS, and so are allowed, quite rightly, to benefit from it?

Er, well, technically it does, but it does so in the same way that the Lily Ledbetter Act does - by not being a law against unlimited detention of anyone suspected of being a terrorist.The NDAA you're referring to is not, actually, a law allowing Obama to detain anyone he wants. It's simply one of a very large number of laws that doesn't specifically bar him from doing so.

Well if this is the case it doesn't confer any rextra rights on citizens. Yes. And at least the same conditions necessary to vote should be met to hold office. No, you get an S.SN. with your green card, i.e. at a point when you shouldn't have been working yet. So that you can do all the things that one does with one's social security number.

They are. And in my daydream, they would be as well. At least, I assume you'd be able to answer a test question on your own positions in order to vote for yourself.My idea isn't some grand democracy test. It's simply, do you know Candidate A's positions? Do you know candidate B's positions? No? Well, here they are.Ok, now that you know why to vote for someone, go ahead and do it.I'm just trying to mitigate the fact that people partially decide who represents them without giving one thought as to how they will represent them. This would be ok, if these same people weren't also representing me.I understand, in a democracy, people will be elected that disagreew ith me because I disagree with the people voting, and I'm OK with that. What I have a hard time with is the people who agree with me (or my opponents) and yet vote counter to their interests because they don't take the time to understand that they're voting against their interests.Its akin to me cheering for a sports team, who are playing a game that the refs don't know the rules to. If my team loses a fairly played game, it doesn't hurt as much as when they lose because the refs didn't call any of the fouls.The uninformed often end up being the swing vote. Especially in WI, which is about as purple as you can get. I have a hard time thinking that an uninformed vote carries as much weight as my informed one. Besides, for local races, like school board and sheriff, there is little to no way to determine what someone stands for or against. A test that would inform me on each candidate would be something I'd welcome heading into the voting booth.