3 ms·
I don't think #1 is as bad as you think. It works if you make it easier for people to vote, but don't force them to vote. Additionally, emphasizing that citiz
by ben010783 11y ago
I don't think #1 is as bad as you think. It works if you make it easier for people to vote, but don't force them to vote. Additionally, emphasizing that citizens have a right to vote and giving them more time to do so can lead more a more engaged population and voters that are more informed.
- ZoeZoeBee 11y agoWe'll have to agree to disagree and use for example cities and rural areas where literacy rates hover around 50%, see Detroit. Do you honestly believe these people have an accurate grasp on the civics of the nation, or the logic and understanding necessary to come to an informed decision?
- shkkmo 11y agoDo you honestly believe we should restrict their ability to vote based on your preconceptions about their understanding of the world? Edit: I do agree that lots of people don't posses the quality of information to make good voting choices. I just think that isn't a good justification for disenfranchising people.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ZoeZoeBee 11y agoNo I would not do it on my preconception of their understanding, that is what a civics test would confirm or deny. If its required to gain citizenship why should it not be a requirement of voting? LowInformation voters have not been a benefit to this country.