Legislation Idea

[Nation]

I am not yet going to propose this, I just want to work it around with some of the other Senators. First off, I need to know how many of you would even CONSIDER voting on a piece of legislation that would increase the voting age? (i.e X number of posts instead of 18). I think it's too easy for any troll (or extremely inactive member, who gets 18 posts, doesn't do anything, then votes along party lines in the elections) to come in here and do that. I don't believe it's helping the electoral process at all.

Thanks.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I support this idea.

[King]

Me too...50-100 posts would be good...we have  longer lifespans for 18 to be old enough to vote...

[Keystone Phil]

I might not be a member of the leadership but let me voice my strong support for this idea. I urge my Senators to support such a measure.

[Gabu]

I'm not a senator, but this gave me an idea that I thought I'd share, since I think it might work: rather than make it a flat number of posts required before someone can vote, what if we made it in proportion to how many months the person has been a member?  For example, maybe we could make it that the person would have had to make 20 posts per month of membership.  If the person had only been a member for one month, that person would only need 20 posts to vote.  If a person had been a member for 5 months, that person would need 100 posts to vote.  We could make the number of months round up, so that someone who had been around for less than one month would still need 20 posts to vote rather than 0.

This would make it so that a person would have to continually post in order to vote rather than just being able to get to a certain set number of posts and then sit on them until each election comes up.  Of course, it would also take more work than the current method, so there would be downsides.

Just a suggestion I humbly propose to our representatives.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm neutral on this idea.  I have no objection to an increase in the voting age, but I also see no particular need for it either.  My only concern is that might distract the Senate from more important matters.

[StevenNick]

I don't support raising the number of posts to reach eligibility.  If anything, I would support lowering the posts requirement to zero.

[JohnFKennedy]

I do not support a measure to increase the number of posts as it restricts those who can participate, instead Gabu's idea may be better or something to that extent where to keep your registration valid you must make say five or ten posts a month and if they do not meet this they are marked and not allowed to vote in any elections the following month say but if they get back to the requisite number of posts a month they can vote from then on.

What I mean is that they don't ever lose their registration for inactivity (unless they don't vote for two elections) but if they don't make the required number of posts in a month they are put on a hold of some type so they cannot vote in any election the month following the month of low activity. We could also say if they don't post for say three months in a row then their registration is cancelled.

Sorry if that is a little confusing.

[KEmperor]

I think Sen. Nation's idea deserves strong consideration.

[Akno21]

I would be more likely to support Gabu's idea than Sen. Nation's. However, I do not believe that we should restrict voting rights any more than we already do.

 

[The Dowager Mod]

I would not support raising the number of posts needed to vote.

[PBrunsel]

I can now speak here (I think) due to me being an elected official.

I support the 50-100 post needed. I lost a Senate election due to a poster form Iowa who has not been seen since he voted against me.

[Platypus]

I support the system; we have had many members register at 18 posts and then contribute significantly afterwards-myself included.

If I had to hang around for 50 posts to get in here, to be perfectly honest, i probably wouldn't have. At that time I had no interest in the other forums; only in the fantasy forum. Now my interess have certainly broadened, because i've been here for a while.

18 is good. it ties into the real system, is low enough to keep people interested, and high enough to prevent total trolls from registering and nmot contributing. Because we purge the voting lists, I feel that it works out.

And, coincidentally, how many people in real life don't become involved in politics between elections, but vote regularly?

[2952-0-0]

I don't support raising the number of posts to reach eligibility.  If anything, I would support lowering the posts requirement to zero.

I'm not so sure, StevenNick. This would create puppet voters. I have two email addresses, for example (being the nice guy I dare not use it).

[TheWildCard]

I support Senator Nation's idea!