The ivory tower intellectual vs the man on the street

[orange]

Drake - why don't we have literacy checks before being allowed to vote? Or a poll tax?

Because it's wrong, and more importantly, illegal

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by orange
Drake - why don't we have literacy checks before being allowed to vote? Or a poll tax?

Because it's wrong, and more importantly, illegal

Yeah, plus we don't need them in the US because we already have their net effect: American voters tend to be wealthier and (believe it of not) better-educated than the population as a whole. They also tend to be older and whiter. This explains, in part, how the GOP has weilded so much power in the post-war years, in spite of being the minority party; there are more Democrats in the country, but more Republicans vote.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake - why don't we have literacy checks before being allowed to vote? Or a poll tax?

I clearly stated earlier that I don't support requiring national service for people to vote. That was Ned's idea. I just said that I think that a mandatory service program has a lot of good aspects to it. I never said or implied that I wanted to limit voting privileges in any way.

Thank goodness we don't have literacy checks or you wouldn't be able to vote at all...

[Capt Dizle]

Lots of southern democrats tend to vote Republican too. Much more moderate than northern or west coast Democrats.

A good strategy for the Dems is to run a southern centrist for president. Especially one who is not tainted by a lot of years in Washington. Carter, Clinton. Gore was a no go. Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale all from the north were losers.

If you looked at the electoral map the country was very strongly divided with the democrats having big wins in high population centers and most of the rural vote going for Bush. Edwards of NC might be the best candidate for the Dems in 2004.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually, I think my point is this: No one person or group can be trusted to run things in a manner consistent with freedom. Therefore, a representative democracy elected by the people as a whole is needed, which itself is subject to a Constitution which in many ways cannot be changed.

Two points:

1. Who should write this constitution? The US Constitution wasn't written by representatives elected by the masses but a small elite group of men.

2. If the Constitution can't be changed, it is useless. The writers certainly cannot foresee what changes will take place in a hundred years. If the Constitution is written in very vague and broad terms to cover for this, it is largely meaningless. If it is precisely written, it could not keep up with the changes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
The Romans had it right. One had to be in the Army or be eligible to be in the Army to vote for Consul.

I would modify that in today's America. We could provide two or more kinds of service: one military and the other civilian. Service would be voluntary. But only those who served could vote.

Then I assume you propose a tax exemption for everyone else?

I vaguely remember someone once said something about taxation without representation?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Lots of southern democrats tend to vote Republican too. Much more moderate than northern or west coast Democrats.

A good strategy for the Dems is to run a southern centrist for president. Especially one who is not tainted by a lot of years in Washington. Carter, Clinton. Gore was a no go. Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale all from the north were losers.

If you looked at the electoral map the country was very strongly divided with the democrats having big wins in high population centers and most of the rural vote going for Bush. Edwards of NC might be the best candidate for the Dems in 2004.

I absolutely agree. But it is interesting that the other thing that map indicates is that the Dems could also just abandon the South (except Florida, which isn't the South...except in its north) and try to be slightly more competative in the Northeast and Midwest (where they took every state except Ohio, Indiana, and New Hampshire, IIRC). Indiana's hopelessly Republican, but the Dems can actually compete in Ohio and NH.

[Kaak]

bah...people don't know and don't want to know...they are perfectly content going to vote every couple of years and feeling like they did their part. I think most people would see it as too much of a hassle...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by orange
why should someone be forced to serve in the armed forces OR peace corps just to vote?

To keep do-nothing crybabies like you from having a say in running the country.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
One recurring theme I hear at Poly is the thinking that education equals intelligence and lack of education equals stupidity. This is such a clear and self evident falsehood that I am constantly shocked that it is so prevelant on a internet site that has so many intelligent student posters. I can only credit youthful ignorance and intellectual snobbery.

A very good point, and though the typical offender is a student with no real world experience to speak of, even people with plenty of tangible experience fall into the trap of arguing with their college transcripts. Personally, I'd hire someone with "only" experience long before I would hire someone with only an education. I've seen them both in action, and experience is the winner hands down.

This is why this country would be better off hedging our bets in regards to education. We seem dead set on producing people who are in their mid to late 20's who have been educated at great expense, and who have little or no real world experience. These people are missing the boat often times, because they have made a personally massive investment in an education that has not been tempered in the least by any real experience.

I have seen a number of people bag their advanced degrees once they saw how things worked in their chosen field after some real life experience. Too bad they didn't take a year and work in the field ahead of time, rather than wasting several years getting educated for a career that they have no interest in. Additionally, even if one still is as excited by their career choice after a bit of experience, having the experience allows them to better tailor their education to their career. You can't expect professors who have never worked in the private sector to know how to tailor their classes to the individual needs of their students.

Take it from me, the University will still be there if you decide to step into the real world after 13 years of public schooling. Not only will it still be there, but the chances are that you will make much better use of the resources both you and society expend there.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by monkspider
David, you are often preaching of natural rights, and the various other libertarian ideals that are in vogue these days.
It is fairly easy to see where these ideals might lead though. It is entirely possible that by legitimate means, say luck supplemented by contractual arrangements "freely undertaken" (as you Libs like to point out) one person might be able to gain control of the necessities of life. Under pressure of need, others are then free to sell themselves to this person as slaves, if he is willling to accept them. Otherwise they are free to perish. Under Libretarian ideals, this society is just.
I could go on and on, but Libertarian ideals regarding naturual property rights and so forth are inherently flawed.

Like you commies have any room to talk.

[Roland]

"You can't expect professors who have never worked in the private sector to know how to tailor their classes to the individual needs of their students."

You can't expect that anyway as most classes have to be onesizefitsall. Unless you have a prof-student ratio of 1:1.

As for the issue, spare us the rule by self-proclaimed elites.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
"You can't expect professors who have never worked in the private sector to know how to tailor their classes to the individual needs of their students."

You can't expect that anyway as most classes have to be onesizefitsall. Unless you have a prof-student ratio of 1:1.

As for the issue, spare us the rule by self-proclaimed elites.

I've had a number of professors who were quite willing to allow me to take their course in a different direction than was typical. But I had to know what I wanted to do, they weren't so good at suggesting something beyond what they already offered. Thus my real world experience really helped me here, as I was able to mould my course a bit in order to make it more germain to my needs.

And I agree completely about the elites.

[Roland]

"But I had to know what I wanted to do, they weren't so good at suggesting something beyond what they already offered."

Exactly - no prof can guess students' individual interests, especially for those who do not even know what they want.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Asher


What about stuff like equal rights for blacks? Did the masses support that?

Eventually.