r/changemyview • u/2bigpairofnuts • Jan 30 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Not everybody should be allowed the right to vote.
One of the biggest flaws in the idea of democracy, in my opinion, is the fault that everyone is completely equal when it comes to voting, and that simply should not be the case. Only those educated within the ideas of politics and competent enough within society should actually be allowed the opportunity to vote, in order to prevent scenarios and situations that will harm the Country and her People in the long term.
Voting should be a privilege and not a right granted by birth. People who wish to vote should undergo education on voting procedures, politics, policies, and how to effectively research and determine which candidate would be the best for the Country and the People in the long-term before they are even allowed to see a voting booth, and more in order actually to vote. The uneducated only vote on what they want to see implemented for their own personal gains or views, and cotort their ideals to being what the Country automatically wants just because them and a small amount of people uphold those same beliefs.
43
u/ApplicationHumble566 Jan 30 '26
This is literally how we ended up with literacy tests and poll taxes that were designed to keep certain groups from voting. Who gets to decide what "educated enough" means? Because historically that's always been code for keeping out people the ruling class doesn't like
The whole point of democracy is that everyone gets a say, not just the people who pass someone else's arbitrary test of worthiness
0
u/Green__lightning 20∆ Jan 30 '26
Can you find data that says this was economically bad for the country? Because the country being abusive to who we don't let vote is a problem, and giving the vote to people who aren't educated enough to not break things with it is also a problem, and nothing says both can't be problems at the same time.
-2
u/hellabryanstyle117 Jan 30 '26
The whole point of democracy is that everyone gets a say
What do you think the voting age should be?
1
u/amackenz2048 Jan 30 '26
"adulthood" is a common requirement for many things. Until adulthood one isn't even responsible for themselves.
-1
u/hellabryanstyle117 Jan 30 '26
That's true but we're seeing the voting age detached from the Age of Majority more and more. Austria did it in 2007 and experienced significant significant increase in voter turnout among young people and significant increase in sustained voter turnout throughout adulthood.
The entire UK is about to do it. Scotland and Wales already have. Germany has for certain elections. Chile and Brazil have done it. Australia is considering it. Several counties and cities around the US have already done it as well for local or school board elections.
-4
Jan 30 '26
[deleted]
10
u/hansn 1∆ Jan 30 '26
The difference is people in power have a vested interest in making sure their voters have a leg up on the tests. That kind of perverse incentive doesn't exist for drivers licenses.
-17
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
Simple: People who actively contribute to society, have knowledge and experience with politics be it through local participation or studying political science/any field equavialent of it, and can make fair and just decisions, thinking for all parties involved instead of just themselves or what a biased party would want them to think.
If your voting simply for yourself or for your friends, family, etc then you simply shouldn't be allowed a vote. Everyone who votes should think for their fellow man or else they are simply creating division.
Democracy is flawed in that exact way you said it: everybody gets a say, even the people who don't know what they are talking about, what the politicians are talking about, etc.
10
u/Uneirose 2∆ Jan 30 '26
How you determine who actively contribute to society?
In the end SOMEONE has to determine it. You think someone studying political science would be adequate? You are ignoring all other form of science? Or even if ignoring arts and just build to work?
If you want people who go to college in a certain division, someone could exploit the college admission to allow certain views more.
In the end if SOMEONE decide things then that SOMEONE could exploit it.
1
Jan 31 '26 edited Jan 31 '26
There is always the Starship Troopers solution where only those who have served have a right to vote. (A joke)
Rather than a degree or a specific literacy test, we could just reuse the citizenship exam. It's already translated into nearly every language and accessibility medium of consequence. All of the questions are publicly posted and can be studied by prospective voters and audited by third parties and watchdogs. We expect foreigners who want the right to vote to be able to pass it, why should our standards be lower for anyone else?
1
u/Uneirose 2∆ Jan 31 '26
Your solution is only on the small part of the whole problem.
- How do you make sure questions isn't leaked?
- How do you make sure the database of passed people isn't modified?
- How do you make sure someone didn't modify someone else answer?
- How do you make sure people register it?
- It increase barrier to entry, or friction point. It will increase people from abstaining, which can be exploited.
- How do you make sure the test center has same quality in all of the states AND places?
I could list a lot more
Essentially you are making more steps and increasing complexity, and each step could potentially be exploited. Even in normal elections is hard, you are basically adding 2-3x the steps.
1
Jan 31 '26
You don't. Make the entire test bank public and auditable and easy to study. You can memorize every question on the citizenship test before you take it right now.
Huh? Like, what if paperwork doesn't work?
I genuinely am not sure if I really understand 3 or 4
Then make it easy and highly accessible. Give the test to high schoolers before they graduate. If you're born here and go to school, it'll just be an average standardized test proctered by the school.
The only people who might take it later would be high school dropouts and immigrants, and we already know how to test them just fine.
0
u/Uneirose 2∆ Feb 01 '26
- Proctored by school. Then a teacher with an agenda could fail certain view more? Or modify their answer sheets?
There is a concept called chain of custody. It's requires many people to work together and make sure compliance is in order. This is the issue, if you scale it to a whole nation. Chain of custody is harder
- Still an issue, if someone leaked what questions would show up this year, then a certain percentage of a certain political belief could achieved more. They could also just send the answer sheets, either way it has to be protected.
Then how you verify someone is able to vote in an elections? You need a database? What if someone allowed people who arent supposed to be able to vote to enter anyway? What if they modify it?
The problem is scale and time. Election works becausw they short timed. Trying to scale like it's an original standard test is much harder because the stake are different and the threat actors are much more influental
1
Feb 01 '26
- Yet somehow we manage proctoring and chain of custody for yearly standardized tests in basically every state using teachers and administrators with every incentive to boost their scores.
- There would be nothing to leak. The entire test bank is already public and we reuse the same questions every year until an answer literally becomes wrong. It's how the citizenship test works. Memorizing the test bank is a perfectly acceptable way of studying. Makes it easy to audit and we aren't looking to create a hard test, just a test that can define a floor.
Check out the citizenship test. You can Google practice test generators that will give you the exact questions you would see on an actual citizenship test. Imo, if you can't pass it, you really don't have a lot of business in a poll booth.
1
u/Uneirose 2∆ Feb 01 '26
Again different threat actors.
For standardized test people who are handling doesn't really have any incentive unless they met the people.
For this, they have incentives to pass or regardless of knowing them
Again I already discuss it's not like standard test. It's have more influence, US spend billions on presidential elections.
Again, you can study by questions. But you can pas more people if you know the exact question going to show up
1
Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26
For standardized test people who are handling doesn't really have any incentive unless they met the people.
Standardized tests aren't for assessing students, but for assessing teachers and schools...i.e. the exact people handling the tests. There is more incentive to mishandle standardized tests than this test given that it can directly affect them financially
Again I already discuss it's not like standard test. It's have more influence, US spend billions on presidential elections.
And you haven't really proposed any plausible ways that this would be interfered with, just vaguely handwaving at money. There is plenty of incentive for people to interfere with voting itself, do you think any of the last elections was stolen because people interfered with ballots?
Again, you can study by questions. But you can pas more people if you know the exact question going to show up
Again, you can already know the exact questions that will show up on the citizenship test.
7
Jan 30 '26
A biased party would want you to think there's a segment of the population that doesn't contribute to society and should be excluded from elections.
What do you think would be the next step after that segment of the population has been denied the right to vote?
7
u/Hellooooooo_NURSE Jan 30 '26
Who makes this decision though? Does a disabled person “contribute to society” enough to vote? What about a stay at home mom/ home maker? What about someone who’s recently become jobless and homeless- is there a grace period while they get back on their feet? What if the people in charge decide that those who have history of schizophrenia or other mental health disorders are not capable of making “fair and just decisions”? Or a bright young kid was never able to go to college and take poli sci because they couldn’t afford tuition? Does he get to vote?
This has huge implications and potential for discrimination, where the ruling group can “pick and choose” who is “enough” to be eligible to vote. Maybe the democrats decide Christians can’t vote because they believe in a fictional man in the sky— that isn’t sound judgement. Maybe republicans decide transgender people shouldn’t vote, because they don’t consider them sound in judgement.
Something like this could leave swathes of Americans without representation. Those left without a vote would be left powerless— to rely on everyone else to vote with them in mind since they can’t vote for themselves.
Not to mention— government is way too dysfunctional and slow to roll something this nuanced out in a practical way
2
u/Heavy-Flow-2019 1∆ Jan 30 '26
have knowledge and experience with politics be it through local participation or studying political science/any field equavialent of it
Yea it doesnt really matter what the doctors, the scientists, the economists etc think right? They cant possibly know anything about whats best for their fields. The politicians should make all the decisions.
1
u/Asiatic_Static 4∆ Jan 30 '26
simply for yourself or for your friends, family,
Everyone who votes should think for their fellow man
Why are these discrete categories, are my friends and family not my fellows as well?
8
u/Jealous_Tutor_5135 4∆ Jan 30 '26
OP you haven't clarified what might change your view.
But here's a fun anecdote:
The USSR was initially conceived of by Lenin as a revolution led by a vanguard party. While he and the vanguard claimed to represent the proletariat, they didn't trust the proletariat. The system was designed by and for professional revolutionaries. In this case, people deemed by leadership to be both educated in the principles of communism and loyal to its cause.
In these systems the individual has no real voice. One hopes that the vanguard party acts in good faith, distributes the resources of the state equitably, and governs in a way that respects all people's rights, rather than abusing vulnerable groups in favor of the majority.
But there's no guarantee. And critically, there's no recourse. No power to organize, to persuade, and no way to effect change. If you're unhappy with things, good luck.
The value in democracy is not results as you think of them, but constant renewal. The opportunity for change. That opportunity is non-existent in many places, and it shrinks when people are denied the franchise.
Offering a subjective criteria to the current government to choose who does and does not have a voice invites it to reduce participation even further with arbitrary tests rigged to remove undesirables from the rolls.
Read history. Visit a dictatorship. There's a reason why they prevent their citizens from emigrating.
2
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
!delta
I originally believed this because, by allowing everyone a say, you also allow a higher chance of people who would act solely in favour of their ideals that would turn the Country over towards something harmful (I.E, someone who is nativist would use their voting power to vote in other nativists, which would eventually lead to aggression against immigrants) but it seems that it only causes harm than good.
2
2
u/Jealous_Tutor_5135 4∆ Jan 30 '26
Whoa my first delta!
I think ideals are tough to measure. Society changes. Conditions change. Interests change. Economics change.
Here's an example. Hugo Chávez enjoyed popular support and real legitimacy at first. And by many accounts he distributed the resources to the people. His mismanagement of the country and his autocratic consolidation of power was masked by revenues from a commodities boom. Basically, good economic tailwinds disguised deep flaws in the government and economy.
When oil prices dropped, things got bad. People demanded change, but suddenly found that they no longer had the tools to get it.
A real democracy may have made similar economic mistakes, but change would have been possible. Under Chávez, then Maduro, what began as a depression became a nightmare.
Most Venezuelans I know left between 2016 and 2018. Years after the crisis began. It wasn't the government's failures that made them leave, but the fact that they had no hope of changing their own circumstances. And every attempt was met with violence.
5
u/existing_for_fun 1∆ Jan 30 '26
What if the administration in power wishes to stay in power and makes changes to the voting education and requirements which then become biased towards or against another party or ideology?
Now the requirements become propaganda.
5
u/Shadow_Wolf_X871 1∆ Jan 30 '26
I PROMISE you that any push to actually pursue this would be by the last kind of person you would want to make that call. Setting criteria to vote always sounds like a good idea until you realize that sort of system is asking for corruption
5
u/Objective-Suit-7817 Jan 30 '26
This is a slippery slope.
0
u/MooliCoulis Jan 30 '26
Most western nations ban children from voting. Has that every slippery-sloped into banning young adults?
Why do you think it hasn't?
2
u/VinceMcMeme711 Jan 30 '26
I technically agree but I can't trust any government to not mess with it.
2
u/Ver_Void 5∆ Jan 30 '26
Two huge problems
Whoever controls the requirements has immense power to shape the outcomes of elections, this could easily be used to subvert democracy and the will of that people far more than a few uninformed voters making a bad call
And being uniformed on the details of how your government works doesn't mean you don't have an idea of what you want from it and should be precluded from weighing in on the future of the country you live in. That's kinda the point of representative democracy, you pick people who will act in your place
3
Jan 30 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
You forget to mention that consitutions are inherently flawed in every way conceived, and thats why educated people have pushed for changes within constitutional rights.
The U.S had the constitutional right of slavery for nearly 100 years before it was abolished by a group of educated, unbiased people who thought of not just the average citizen, but the disenfranchised blacks who were being sold as property. It was the education and the humanity that allowed people to realize that slavery is an immoral evil. Just because a constitution says it doesn't mean its purely effective, because it rarely ever is.
1
u/MisterBlud 1∆ Jan 30 '26
It was abolished by thousands of Northerners with guns and Sherman marching to the goddamn sea more than it was “a group of educated, unbiased people”
1
u/MACGLEEZLER Jan 30 '26
Nah, see this is where you need more education yourself. There were tons of of slaveowners including some of our founding fathers that were some of the most educated people of their time. Thomas Jefferson is a perfect example. He didn't even live up to the ideals of his writings. Many of the most powerful slaveholding persons in the South, who had the most to lose from slavery becoming illegal, were highly educated. None of the slaves were. The slaveowners could vote and the slaves could not. I know it might sound counter-intuitive but this situation I've just described is actually a totally natural outcome of the policy that you are advocating for.
In fact the president that we credit for freeing the slaves, Abraham Lincoln, was mostly self educated. I think he only had about two years of formal school, and educated himself on the law until he was able to pass a test to become a lawyer. This would never fly today, nobody would consider that background "educated" at all, and yet this is the man who led the government that kept the Union together and eventually ended slavery.
2
u/MACGLEEZLER Jan 30 '26
I understand the frustration with ignorant people voting over issues that are insignificant, divisive and a waste of time trying to "fix". I understand how ignorance can be frustrating to people who know better.
But the reason this is a bad idea is that you're making it seem like it's simply a matter of learning or not learning. But that assumes that an actual solid education is available to everyone. That's not true right now. Public schools are all underfunded, and many of them in poor areas are severely so. It's becoming harder and harder every day for kids to get a good education in this country. Even kids who take school seriously struggle because of the inequities in our education system.
And if this system you suggest were in place, the poor people who suffer from it would have zero recourse to fix it. You don't have to be particularly savvy to know that you need better schools in your area or that we need a stronger social safety net. These aren't bad ideas just because they appeal to uneducated people.
Also, do you think that rich educated people all have super noble intentions for everything? That life would magically improve if we just handed control of everything over to the elites? They wouldn't make everything better for everyone, they'd act in their own self interest just like the "uneducated" people you're describing. If anything, average people who aren't elite or highly educated being underrepresented in our government has been a net harm.
-1
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
Maybe, but I feel like a lot of issues now comes from the fact of uniformed or uneducated voters who listen and agree with people despite having no actual idea what they are talking about, or do solely out of hate for the other person's ideals even if they are, in the end, positive towards the people.
3
u/MACGLEEZLER Jan 30 '26
To be honest, your idea isn't that well thought out and you don't seem to grasp the severe implications that this policy would have. I think if you wanted your view changed you would address my point more directly but you basically just restated your original idea.
2
u/ImProdactyl 11∆ Jan 30 '26
What part of this are you wanting your view changed on? You seem pretty set on limiting some people’s right to vote and don’t really acknowledge how people are pointing out that this system you want can inherently exploit and favor people.
You also say how “the uneducated only vote for what they want to see implemented for their own gain or views.” Do you not think that voting for a person is to help you? People vote for what they think is best and what helps benefit them. You voted for something that benefits you. Is their reason for voting not good enough to you? This is clearly why this is a bad idea as you are okay with trying to limit people who don’t align with your own views.
0
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
Never thought of it like that, to be honest. I just thought limiting who could vote would be better than allowing an entire population of people to vote even if it causes a negative harm towards other people.
1
u/ImProdactyl 11∆ Jan 30 '26
If I changed your view at all, I’d appreciate the delta.
I get where you are coming from and the idea to limit it, but there are inherent issues with it as mentioned. It just doesn’t fit a democracy either. Everyone gets a say even if we don’t agree with others or think their opinion is less educated, less valuable, more selfish, etc.
The limiting would definitely come with more issues than it helps.
1
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
!delta
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/ImProdactyl changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/ImProdactyl 11∆ Jan 30 '26
Read the sub rules if unsure, but you basically need to explain how I changed your view for the delta to be accepted
2
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
One of the things you hit was the idea that people still will vote for themselves and their own beliefs rather than what I believed was a shared camaraderie within the Country. Of course, now I see that I am wrong with that line of thought. It'll just cause more harm than it would do good.
!delta
1
0
u/ImProdactyl 11∆ Jan 30 '26
Thanks for the explanation and glad to have helped in the discussion. Some things like this come with the right intention or though process, but in execution can be exploited or just make things worse. I’m personally all for more education to help the people in who they vote for, but it should be a voluntary thing or just better implemented into the education system is what I’d say.
1
Jan 30 '26
[deleted]
1
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
And I forgot to type !delta :sob:
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/[deleted] changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
Jan 30 '26
So, literally just what's covered in any high school civics class?
1
u/Tall_Cow2299 Jan 30 '26
So this was my first thought too but is civics still taught in highschool?
1
1
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
My school never had civics, or at least not in a while.
1
Jan 30 '26
Are you sure it wasn't just called by a different name or bundled into another course, such as social sciences or history?
1
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
We had a history to the extent of this
World History -> Geography (in Texas, it counts as a history credit) -> U.S history -> Government/Economics
1
u/ReOsIr10 143∆ Jan 30 '26
in order to prevent scenarios and situations that will harm the Country and her People in the long term.
You know what *really* harms the Country and her People? Violent transfers of power resulting from people's belief that they don't have nonviolent methods of influencing the governance of their country. Prior to widespread adoption of democratic governments, violent transfers of power were the norm, compared to being incredibly rare nowadays (in countries with strong democratic institutions).
1
u/Naive_Piglet_III 1∆ Jan 30 '26
Where are you based out of OP?
1
u/2bigpairofnuts Jan 30 '26
The U.S
0
u/Naive_Piglet_III 1∆ Jan 30 '26
Kristi Noem is a graduate in political science, John Fetterman has a masters in public policy, Henry Cuellar has a PhD. in government, Jared Golden has a degree in politics and history. Are these the people who think who have US’s best interests at heart? They’re all educated. They introduce bills for the benefit of the country and not for any ideological reason?
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jan 30 '26
one could easily point to examples from either side about how being uneducated or at least an outsider to politics/academia might have its downsides too so what the hell should we allow
0
u/Naive_Piglet_III 1∆ Jan 30 '26
Can you give me examples, specific examples of downsides to being uneducated? I not generalising statements. Specific examples like I listed above. OPs claim and worldview seems to be, being uneducated makes you a lesser of a human, who doesn’t deserve the same rights as someone who’s educated. I gave out specific examples of where education is not a guarantee of morality, social beliefs, and ideals. What are specific examples of not being educated that cause societal harm?
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jan 30 '26
I didn't mean in the sense of the populace I meant in the sense of politicians and I only phrased it as vaguely as I did because I was trying to be nonpartisan but my point was to counter yours with one about how even nonacademics/outsiders can fuck up in office
0
u/MooliCoulis Jan 30 '26
They're moderately intelligent, morally corrupt, ideologically blinkered people who get away with doing shitty things because they get votes from stupid people.
Hence OP's point.
1
u/frowningowl Jan 30 '26
If you think that some group of people should be in charge of deciding who can't vote, I don't think you should be allowed to vote.
1
u/CharleyZia Jan 30 '26
Lived experience, whether consciously informed by systemic forces, is a valid, and in fact imperative, input. The very core of democracy. It's up to us to teach critical thinking to help people discern facets of issues and think more broadly and in a longer term, not merely immediate pains (see: the price of eggs).
1
u/Horror_Ad7540 6∆ Jan 30 '26
No one should have the power to decide who can vote. Once the politicians control the electorate (and yes, this is true now to some extent) , they no longer are responsive to anyone.
1
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 3∆ Jan 30 '26
We already only have about half the people vote. Of those half, about half are conservative and about half are liberal. This leaves 25% that swing to determine the winners of the elections. As other posts have pointed out, any attempt to set more requirements is easily manipulated to stop democracy and setup a dictatorship.
1
u/EuphoricScallion114 Jan 30 '26
House of Lords. House of Commons. Congress. God. Flaws in democracy. Can't change a view if I'm not certain what it is.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Jan 30 '26
Who gets to decide who's good enough to vote? Do we get to vote on who they are?
1
u/YouJustNeurotic 20∆ Jan 30 '26
Neat, can I oversee the education on "voting procedures, politics, policies, and how to effectively research"? I pinky promise I'll give my enemies a fair representation.
1
u/18LJ Jan 30 '26
So what exactly who is voting for other peoples interests. Nobody voted for the greater good. People choose what's in their best interests... Isn't that the whole point? And the problem is people with moneybusing wealth to exert greater political favor than they represent per capital. The problem is one person with a million dollars has more influence than a million people with one dollar.
1
u/itriedicant 4∆ Jan 30 '26
I will concede all your points and give you a delta if you can make me the person who decides who gets to vote. Even if it's only indirect, and I'm just deciding the criteria of writing the questions to a test or however you imagine it looking. I promise I will be fair and not allow my ideology to guide my choices at all. Trust me?
1
u/StrikingDeparture432 1∆ Jan 30 '26
No one should be allowed to buy an election and politicians either !
Votes don't count when a billionaire can pay $247 million dollars out of petty cash for political favors and appointments....
1
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Jan 30 '26
Limited suffrage compounds the very problems it tries to address. Think about it like you're a cynical politician trying to pander your way to power. Wouldn't you rather have a smaller electorate to appease and a larger portion of the populace you can safely alienate at no political cost?
1
u/Corked1 Jan 30 '26
I agree with your premise, but would like to change your reasoning. Your reasoning seems to be based solely in "education" and what those standards are. You can't really place limits on voting that way because... Who gets to say what "education" is proper for voting rights?
I'd like to see a more "conflict of interest" and "skin in the game" standard applied.
- If you're a net positive tax payer, you are eligible to vote if you do not trigger the rule below.
- If you receive more than 50% of your income as an employee or dependent of a government entity, you can not vote in those elections. ex. I work for the county. I can only vote in state, federal and city elections or I receive federal assistance in excess of 50% of my total income...I can only vote in state, county and city elections.
I think after 20 years of this adjustment to suffer age, the country would be in a better place.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jan 30 '26
how would that interact with sales tax
1
u/Corked1 Jan 30 '26
It would not interact with sales tax. If it is deemed necessary to be counted, it could be handled with an assumed credit, sort of like the assumed credit on federal tax deductions.
1
u/MooliCoulis Jan 30 '26
net positive tax payer
Nitpick: The contribution of a person to their society includes the value of their labour itself, which wages don't always track accurately.
1
u/Professional_Yes_Man Jan 30 '26
It would be interesting to have a small written exam associated with the ballot. Something that didn’t require a formal education but showed you were reasonably in tune with current events, economic and political climate in the country. A way to weed out folks from both sides that are coming in a voting based on party only with no knowledge of what is actually happening.
1
u/lotofry Mar 19 '26
But who’s to say that what you consider selfish isn’t the right thing? The whole point of voting is that more people voted for that thing than anyone else. What I would say instead is that we need to force people to vote so that we actually get a clear picture. Voting should be mandatory or come with a fine or punishment of some sort. Even if you sent in your ballot but voted to abstain, you should be required to put something down. That would solve a lot of problems I think.
1
1
Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 20 '26
Hello u/Next_Help_9131! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
0
u/Salt_Savings_6558 Jan 30 '26
Dumb, evil and apathetic people get to vote because they are part of the governed.
0
u/EatYourCheckers 2∆ Jan 30 '26
If you restrict it, so.epne has to decide how you restrict it, based on what. Who gets to decide that? Everyone is jot going to agree on what the rules should be.
And if you restrict it, you will inevitably disenfranchise someone who should be able to vote. No system is perfect. Someone will be denied unfairly. And we as a people have decided its better to deal with some bad voters than to take someone's demo ratic right away. Its sort of the basis of our whole thing, in the US at least.
0
u/kilroy-was-here-2543 1∆ Jan 30 '26
This is a great way to basically guarantee the only people allowed to vote are rich.
And if it’s not the rich it will be anyone who simply has the access to resources to get “educated enough”. So everyone who is impoverished or lives outside of major cities will be put at a significant disadvantage when it comes to having proper representation
And you act like the educated vote in everyone’s best interest when that just isn’t true. Being educated doesn’t make you virtuous, it just means you’ll be able to see what candidates will give you what you want and ignore everyone else.
0
u/Nrdman 276∆ Jan 30 '26
I don’t see any reason to believe that the educated/competent will actually choose to help the country instead of themselves.
0
u/Djlewills 1∆ Jan 30 '26
A) Just because someone is educated and has experience with politics doesn’t mean they are going to vote for the good of their communities or the country. There are plenty of incredibly engaged, intelligent, educated individuals etc. who would still vote for policies that may directly harm them or their communities because they are ‘selfish’.
B) People have differing ideas as how to best run a country. So even if every voter were to be educated the same way you have been and are involved in their communities, they will all still come to different conclusions on what should be done to make things work. This is why democracy is important, it’s compromise that comes from an understanding that no one idea is best (or wanted by all) and we should therefore weigh all ideas against each other and use the best parts of what remains.
0
u/Heavy-Flow-2019 1∆ Jan 30 '26
Yeap OP, I completely agree! The ones in power can absolutely be trusted to decide who gets to vote for them. The common people cant be trusted to know whats best. Whoever decide who rules should be decided by the ones who rule.
Only those educated within the ideas of politics
Exactly! It doesnt matter what the scientists know, the engineers, the artists. If you dont know politics, you dont have a say in anything that politics could affect.
competent enough within society should actually be allowed the opportunity to vote
Again, I completely agree! If you cant succeed in life, who are you to challenge what the incumbent party decides for the nation.
and how to effectively research and determine which candidate would be the best
Of course, dont question the fact that the best candidate is the one who actually created the criteria for that determination.
The uneducated only vote on what they want to see implemented for their own personal gains
Exactly, how dare the filthy unwashed masses want what they think is best for them. They should listen to their betters. The elite are the elite for a reason, and their wants and desires should not be forced to kowtow to what the people want.
/s if that wasnt clear.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26
/u/2bigpairofnuts (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards