Before you go ballistic, please understand that I know we all have the right to vote, but are we qualified?
What constitutes qualification when preparing to cast your ballot? Is it knowing your side's point of view? Is it boning up on every issue and vote cast or decision made regarding it? Where do you go today to get qualified?
I don't have the answers, and no, I am not ready to return to the days of disqualifying people through voting tests. At the end of the discussion, is our country better if we all cast a vote, informed or otherwise, or is a smaller electorate where we want be? GS
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Are you qualified to vote?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
gary, anybody that listens to your show on a regular basis is qualified to vote. The middle of the road , main street format of your show gives listeners the information they need to form an opinion on the issues and cast an informed vote.
Thanks Mom! Does this mean I get extra allowance this week? GS
Anyone voting republican is qualified to vote...now if your thinking of voting democrat I think you better study the issues a little harder.
As a taxpaying, property owning citizen of the United States, I believe that I am qualified to vote. When we allowed those that do not own property to vote, we ended creating the largest welfare system in the world. Property owners and those paying taxes promote the general welfare and therefore are the most informed citizens. They have the greatest incentive to know the candidates stand on the issues. They do not vote based on party as happened in the fall City Treasurer election, where a totally unqualified candidate won election.
Being well informed has to be the most important "personal qalification" to cast a vote. I was first eligible to vate in '79 & was a registered Republican (only because my father was a Republican). This is the first year that I would truly consider myself qualified to vote because of all the info that I have read, listened too,& watched, & from Republicans & Democrats alike. In previous elections I would just vote straight Republican without knowing anything about the issues or the candidates, that's not being "qualified to vote!"
I am a thirty year old mother of three, and I do feel that I am qualified to vote. I have a strong sense of responsibility toward my children about the decisions that I make. If I eroneously chose someone based on the fact that they were a good speaker, for example, and they led our nation to peril, I feel that I would have taken part in their future struggles. As a whole, I believe that voters in this country suffer from a common problem, which is that they want the federal government to take responsibility for their personal problems. It is a basic problem of prioritizing. My husband works very hard, so I can stay home with my children, and I have worked hard to have a small home business for the same reason. We pay a large sum of money for healthcare every month (close to $600.00) We chose to have a smaller home, and traded in our car payments for used cars that we could pay off, so that we could afford the things we need. Why should we pay the health insurance of a family who chooses not to afford it, because they are confused between want and need. I know so many people living together, unmarried, both working and also collecting benefits, because they claim a single income. Should we have to pay for them too? I believe their are people out there who need help, but I believe that is a local problem, and one of a breakdown of community. Back when there was no obligation for hard working people to give their money over to the provisions of non-working people, many were more willing to help their neighbor, or fellow man in times of need. That spirit of altruism has been replaced with the resentment of having to help those who refuse to help themselves. The federal government is too involved in the small issues. They are here to protect and serve, not to be the parents of spoiled children.
Ha, I got so excited to blog that I didn't finish answering the question. In summation, those who are willing to take the responsibility of voting seriously, and are prioritized as to what the function of government should be, are qualified to vote.
Shelly Lancaster, PA
Great question, I am sure one can answer that for themselves most easily. But ponder this; if our students and citizens are constantly bombarded with negativism about our country and the political process, how can one aspire to be enthusiastic about having the right to vote let alone be qualified. As liberalism creeps more and more into colleges and schools either through various educators liberal thinking agenda or opinios smearing our democracy or influence our educational institutions with huge amounts of dollars from the middle east, how can we truly expect our younger citizens to take this act of responsibility seriously? Our Founding Fathers were led divinely and I am not so sure our culture wants someone to lead our nation with divine guidance or intervention. So I ask you? Perhaps we need to "roll back" this question and ask rather "how can we impact and create a qualified voter"?
Anyone who is still breathing unassisted !!
I say this with a bit of tongue and cheek but you shouldn't be able to vote unless you can tell the difference between pandering and reality you shouldn't vote. If you can't successfully enunciate at least two major campaign positions in some detail and be able to differentiate them among the candidatates you shouldn't vote.
In my opinion voting is merely a means to make the citizens feel as if they have some control of their country's destination. Unfortunately candidates sell us hopes of a better tomorrow and rarely deliver.
Somehow we need to have or get accountability for campaign promises/pledges other than the having to wait for the next election. Until we are able to immediately call an elected official on the carpet and publicly humiliate them and/or make them redress our grievances our ability to vote is almost worthless.
Although I always vote; in practice most of those that I've contributed to getting elected have always left me down. We keep hearing the same campaign speeches year after year after year and yet we keep believing that the next elected representative is going to change the direction of politics in our country. How many times will we fall for this scam before we wake up?
So my question to you is how can we hold our elected representatives accountable since we cannot depend on the media which has been turned into a profit center rather than a true investigator of government misdeeds?
It's hard to figure out who should vote. It's much easier to determine who should not.
If you ever voted for Ed Rendell, you should not vote. Ever. You have proven you have no judgment.
If you have ever complained, even once, about any monthly government check being too little, you should certainly never vote.
If you listen to Gary repeat the crap dished out by the main street media and believe it, you should not vote. As an example, how about "Rick Santorum seems mean", or "the middle class is in bad shape". Great job comrade.
If you think it's ok to ban smoking in a building you don't own, ok to prosecute people for expressing their opinion before an election, and it's ok to take away freedom from your neighbors because you don't value that freedom very much, then, for God's sake, don't vote.
If you have no core beliefs to guide your morality so that you have to deeply study and read the opinions of every side to an issue before you can make up your mind on it, then do us all a favor and study at home on election day. Just don't vote.
And finally, if you think the dems are not socialists and you think they are just out for the common man AND you even fleetingly entertain the notion of voting for any of them, please help your country by taking a long cruise to Kosovo on election day. You are qualified to go there, but you are not qualified to vote.
I'm qualified to vote. I care about our country enough to research the candidates & issues. It takes some effort, but it is worth it!
The ideal in my mind would be a large group of informed voters. I have in the past went into the voting booth and not voted for anyone because I was not informed. So not feeling qualified to vote still involved the effort to go to the polls for me.
I believe I'm qualified.
I think our nation's founders were really onto something with the way they limited voting eligibility. I disagree with some of the limitations, but I wonder if we might not be better off limiting the vote to head of household.
Yes, I said "head of household," not "homeowner." And yes, I know the difference. ;)
I'm not a homeowner. BTW, I'm also (intentionally) not enrolling in welfare programs that my family's eligible for. Why is that? Because I want to promote the general welfare, not my own on my neighbor's dime. And my kids' future is a pretty darned good enough incentive to inform myself about not only the candidates, but also the Constitution and the ideas on which it was founded.
I'm not a "homeowner" because I had enough sense to know the mortgages I could get were bad ideas.
I'm not a "homeowner" because my wife and I have decided that it's better for our kids (and thus, our family) if she stays at home.
All non-homeowners are not created equal.
Now granted: the 2000 election? I don't think I was qualified to vote then. I had just turned 18, and all I really knew was that (a) we Seitlers were Republicans, and (b) I had a chance to vote a Bush into office.
That's as far as my thinking went, and I didn't give a rip about anything else on the ballot.
I'd say that Travis Seitler wasn't qualified to vote. And sadly, most of my peers still approach voting the way I did back then.
I think that once you truly become a "qualified" voter you come to realize that there are no qualified candidates.
Post a Comment