>>1410587Did you even read what I wrote?
>>That type of thinking is wrong and is not what the Founding Fathers wanted. How the hell do you know what the founding fathers wanted? I would assume, if I were to guess, that what they would WANT, is not to have people keep guessing what they would have wanted, and try to build a system of government that is current, and evolving, not rigidly conforming to the rules of men who owned slaves and pooped in outhouses.
>All people should vote for whichever political representative best reflects their desires. NO! That is the OPPOSITE of beneficial to a country. If you MUST vote, vote for the best and the brightest, not the guy you like the most.
>Each person has the right to decide and your method of saying that if they do not meet certain qualifications, they should not vote. One of the ways that best shows how wrong you are versus the constitution is to imagine what you said as law; it would be very illegal.Actually, there is a law very similar to what I laid out in place already, and no one complains about it. Driver's liscences. You are required to meet certain criteria before operating a motor vehicle. Choosing a head of state, or of a city, or any kind of representative is arguably much more important and dangerous, and yet the only qualification required is that you exceed a certain age.
Finally, your argument is ridiculous, because I'm not advocating barring anyone from voting. I'm advocating the right NOT to vote. Not being familiar with the issues or the candidates in an election is at the top of the list of excellent reasons not to vote, and we should congratulate people who choose not to use their vote in such a situation instead of vomiting stupidity like 'If you don't vote, don't complain' at them.
Also, posting a picture to keep from completely derailing the thread.
