Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:1. mandatory.

2. yes you could repeat it, just like a driver's license. In fact I'd be down with it being just a test like that with a free class. If you feel you don't need the class just take the test.

Dude, that is a good idea.

The rock the vote thing struck me as laughable quite honestly, people need to seriously now about HOW to vote, not just... vote.

Prisoners can't vote in the USA right ? That's just whilst they're incarcerated yes ? Or is it only for certain crimes they lose it ?

I am not sure actually, I will look around and see if I can find out. Mistressofminis worked in a prison as a guard I believe, she might be someone to ask.

depends on the state Redy. Some can some can't , depending on crime. I'm not sure fo the details being that all the bodies were hidden properly, er I am not a criminal.

Edit: yes. It has a to be a universal standard type test to avoid poll shenanigans.

Alternatively this could be a mandatory federal reuiqrement for schools. I'd be ok with that too.

It varies by state. In certain places its a lifetime ban, in others you can vote while incarcerated.

Frazzled wrote:depends on the state Redy. Some can some can't , depending on crime. I'm not sure fo the details being that all the bodies were hidden properly, er I am not a criminal.

Blast you!

A lifetime ban? OMG that is ludicrous. Can you appeal that(or however you put it)?

What happens when you move to a different state though .

Its not ludicrous if its a felony. I'm sorry if you commit it sucks to be you, you should be taking a dirt nap to begin with.

How can that not be the easiest way in the world to control votes though? You could just "cleanse" your area whenever you wanted? Seriously though man...

Please clarify.

Frazzled wrote:Actually I would be supportive of educational limitations on voting, but not as stereotyped.

To vote you should have to have a class on two things: 1. The US political system and current Constitution (with focus on the Bill of Rights especially the 10th Amendment); and: 2) Economics for Dummies. It should be taught in an easy understand 'hands on' manner so that anyone can get it.

With that basis of understanding we would have a citizenry able to make more informed voting decisions.

I would add some basic statistics.

How To Lie With Statistics would be a good text.

However, as I've said several times before, Winston Churchill was right when he said that democracy was a terrible system of government whose only advantage was that all the others that had been tried were worse.

If someone was wrongly accused (so very rare indeed...) and sent to jail on really serious charges. They are officially screwed. I don't like the U.S. legal system much although it does have it's strong points.

This whole thing just opens up a can of flesh eating worms though, I can only imagine half of the ways that this law could be taken advantage of, and I am no lawyer by any means.

I would much rather have my chances of arguing with some ignorant prat and convincing him, than just be told what to do by someone with a gun or a Ph.D. or more hair.

Wrexasaur wrote:If someone was wrongly accused (so very rare indeed...) and sent to jail on really serious charges. They are officially screwed. I don't like the U.S. legal system much although it does have it's strong points.

This whole thing just opens up a can of flesh eating worms though, I can only imagine half of the ways that this law could be taken advantage of, and I am no lawyer by any means.

Not accused. Convicted. There's a big difference.

EDIT: I should note I am not defending the convict limitations of each state. I was initially just tryign to answer the question that arose. To asnwer it the way Obama should have answered the Gates kerfluffle "Thats a local matter and no comment."

We had a 3 term prime minister through most of the 90's, and he worked pretty well for us. He was a pretty cool guy who didn't afraid of anyone (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawinigan_Handshake )
partly the reason why we've recovered from the recession already. (well, technically, parts of this country are still screwed, but we did have positive growth) [note, this was mainly because of a tax increase, which enabled the government to have large surpluses, and part of the reason why we have huge deficits now is because those taxes were reduced]

It's certainly not impossible for people to get elected for extremely long terms (FDR) but it is, however, unlikely. Only two canadian prime ministers served 4 or more terms (not consecutively, except for wilfrid laurier, who must have been good, serving 15 years in a row... if you're wondering, the guy who beat him was william lyon mackenzie-king, who served 22 years, though he was elected prime minister 3 times... [not counting every election, technically he was in 5 elections]) and very few have served more than 2. Also, if the man's good at the job, seems to me it's not necessarily a bad thing if they're in office. making a person a president for life and making him be ELECTED for life term after term are two very VERY different things.

I suggest reading up on this article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canadian_prime_ministers -- might interest you to learn more about your friendly neighbour to the north, eh?