Serious Discussion - What should voting requirements be?

[nclib]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but I would support the rights of anyone 18 and over to vote, including felons. Although illegals shouldn't be allowed to vote, I would extend the vote to non-citizens living in the U.S.

On a side note, I feel the naturalization requirements are discriminatory since naturalized immigrants (unlike born citizens) have to pass a civics test in order to be allowed to vote.

[DA]

16 years of age, not a certified lunatic, permanent residence in the place you want to vote in, showing up at the polling station in person.

Not everyone can get off of work to vote, and polling stations arn't always open very late.

That is why, in democracies, elections are either held on the sunday or polling day is a national holiday.

National holiday is a good idea, but local elections happen all the time.

There's 52 sundays in the year.

I work on Sundays. They would have to make local no work holidays (could you imagine the problems this would cause across state lines? Say your bank in California is closed because they have a local holiday going on.)  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 Why 18? Anyway, all we need to do is apply the same test naturalized citizens take to all citizens to gain voting rights.

Edit: to fix quoting problems

[minionofmidas]

16 years of age, not a certified lunatic, permanent residence in the place you want to vote in, showing up at the polling station in person.

Not everyone can get off of work to vote, and polling stations arn't always open very late.

That is why, in democracies, elections are either held on the sunday or polling day is a national holiday.

National holiday is a good idea, but local elections happen all the time.

There's 52 sundays in the year.

I work on Sundays. They would have to make local no work holidays (could you imagine the problems this would cause across state lines? Say your bank in California is closed because they have a local holiday going on.)  

Yeah, I know there's some people who have to work sundays...a problem not usually adressed over here...of course, it only becomes problematic if that means you can't make it to the polling stations during opening hours (remember that the American last minute rush to the polls wouldn't exist since most people could vote during the day) - a problem possibly exacerbated (sp?) by a long commute.

[Niles Caulder]

It is my experience that such a criteria is too restricted. You don't need to know nor understand Montesquieu to have a valid opinion on how you would like your city, state or country to be run. Actually they might have the ability to see things in another perspective.

LOL I don't think we disagree in principle...I don't know about you, but unfortunately my high school govt. class never included Montesquieu.

Basically, the test ought to be pretty forgiving:  "checks and balances," "branches of government," "federal system of govt," "how long is a senator's term of office?" "Who was the first president?" & "who has to register with selective services?"

We probably don't.

We did actually discuss the separation of powers in my high school class and all the other basics of Danish government (it was part of the history classes) but I had a "revalation" during my political work in high school (the youth organisation of SF) where anoother youngster, who never participated in the high flying discussions that you always have in these places , actually was very observant when it came to "real life."

I guess my point is that knowing the number of MPs or wheather or not there is a Department of for Administrative Affairs isn't a necessity when it comes to being a "good" voter

(It seems like I always end up in tecnicalities when discussing with you, Niles )

ROFL!!  All in the pursuit of clarity and not obscurity, I assure you!  [Sorry I lost track of the thread and failed to respond until now.]