Should there be a license to vote?

[Deathknightish]

I don't know how much this is a problem in America, but in Sweden a LOT of people vote on a particular party because "they've always voted for them" or "my father, and my father's father voted for them so I'll continue the tradition", no matter how different the party's politics is in comparison to when they first started to vote.

This suggests, at least to me, that these people aren't mature enough to vote, as they haven't read up on the current political landscape and made an informed decision.

Should we, or should we not, create some sort of license you need to get if you want to vote? Like a one month course you need to take, where you learn about the democratic system, that what a party thought was a good idea 50 years ago necessarily isn't the same today, and that you should keep up with political debates to find out what the different parties want today, and not in the past.

Of course the class is free, as it is a right for the people to vote, but it's not a right to vote on a stupid basis in my opinion. You need to at least have some know how.

It will be completely neutral, so no "this party good, that party bad", it's just meant to make sure that people use their own brain when making their decision, rather than just voting on what they've always voted on because "muh family tradition".

[XDurionX]

Democracy entails idiots' right to vote, too.

[Seranthor]

I don't know how much this is a problem in America, but in Sweden a LOT of people vote on a particular party because "they've always voted for them" or "my father, and my father's father voted for them so I'll continue the tradition", no matter how different the party's politics is in comparison to when they first started to vote.

This suggests, at least to me, that these people aren't mature enough to vote, as they haven't read up on the current political landscape and made an informed opinion.

Should we, or should we not, create some sort of license you need to get if you want to vote? Like a one month course you need to take, where you learn about the democratic system, that what a party thought was a good idea 50 years ago necessarily isn't the same today, and that you should keep up with political debates to find out what the different parties want today, and not in the past.

Of course the class is free, as it is a right for the people to vote, but it's not a right to vote on a stupid basis in my opinion. You need to at least have some know how.

It will be completely neutral, so no "this party good, that party bad", it's just meant to make sure that people use their own brain when making their decision, rather than just voting on what they've always voted on because "muh family tradition".

Here in the US you'd have folks screeching at you that you are trying to restrict someone's right to vote.

[PosPosPos]

Democracy entails idiots' right to vote, too.

Unfortunately, this here is the case.

We haven't figured out a way to make people think critically before voting, hopefully technology and society reaches a point where we can eliminate elections as popularity contests.

[Dendrek]

No

/10Nos

[Kumorii]

Won't happen and will never solve anything. People will continue to think that people who voted for X needs to be more educated. Where would the line of sufficient knowledge be drawn?

It will be completely neutral, so no "this party good, that party bad"

Also, this won't happen.

[Deathknightish]

Won't happen and will never solve anything. People will continue to think that people who voted for X needs to be more educated. Where would the line of sufficient knowledge be drawn?

Easy, when you pass the class. Obviously you are allowed to continue being clueless after, but at least you've had some knowledge fed into you and society has done all it can.

[Bodonius]

It do feel a bit strange that people with dementia should be allowed to vote, but it also feel wrong that someone that is a citizen, legal age that are paying taxes shouldnt be allowed to vote. So to be honest since you still pay some taxes for the rest of the year after you die (Edit: in Sweden) even dead people should be allowed to vote.

[d00mGuArD]

I don't know how much this is a problem in America, but in Sweden a LOT of people vote on a particular party because "they've always voted for them" or "my father, and my father's father voted for them so I'll continue the tradition", no matter how different the party's politics is in comparison to when they first started to vote.

This suggests, at least to me, that these people aren't mature enough to vote, as they haven't read up on the current political landscape and made an informed decision.

Should we, or should we not, create some sort of license you need to get if you want to vote? Like a one month course you need to take, where you learn about the democratic system, that what a party thought was a good idea 50 years ago necessarily isn't the same today, and that you should keep up with political debates to find out what the different parties want today, and not in the past.

Of course the class is free, as it is a right for the people to vote, but it's not a right to vote on a stupid basis in my opinion. You need to at least have some know how.

It will be completely neutral, so no "this party good, that party bad", it's just meant to make sure that people use their own brain when making their decision, rather than just voting on what they've always voted on because "muh family tradition".

Of course there should be license to vote.
The person in power, which right now is Trump, should decide who gets license and who doesn't
See how fast things can go wrong with such "licenses"?

[Phlegethon]

Here in the US you'd have folks screeching at you that you are trying to restrict someone's right to vote.

You forgot to mention that you have the exact same problem. People just voting for a party "because it's always been like that". Even worse since you only have 2 "choices"

[Noctiphobia]

The problem with any kind of voting test is that someone has to actually create it. And the people who create it are likely to bias so that people with their preferences pass it more often.

[Eldar45]

There should be a proof of residency and that is it. For example, if you vote in a local election you need to prove that you live in the county/city. If it's a national election you need to prove your citizenship.

We can't have foreign nations voting in our elections.

[Kumorii]

There should be a proof of residency and that is it. For example, if you vote in a local election you need to prove that you live in the county/city. If it's a national election you need to prove your citizenship.

We can't have foreign nations voting in our elections.

We already have that tied to the vote registry when it comes to counties.
Non-Citizens can't vote to begin with.

[Knolan]

I don't know how much this is a problem in America, but in Sweden a LOT of people vote on a particular party because "they've always voted for them" or "my father, and my father's father voted for them so I'll continue the tradition", no matter how different the party's politics is in comparison to when they first started to vote.

This suggests, at least to me, that these people aren't mature enough to vote, as they haven't read up on the current political landscape and made an informed decision.

Should we, or should we not, create some sort of license you need to get if you want to vote? Like a one month course you need to take, where you learn about the democratic system, that what a party thought was a good idea 50 years ago necessarily isn't the same today, and that you should keep up with political debates to find out what the different parties want today, and not in the past.

Of course the class is free, as it is a right for the people to vote, but it's not a right to vote on a stupid basis in my opinion. You need to at least have some know how.

It will be completely neutral, so no "this party good, that party bad", it's just meant to make sure that people use their own brain when making their decision, rather than just voting on what they've always voted on because "muh family tradition".

Nope, that is a bad idea, it gives the government rights over who choose them and that is vary easily abused. Also, uneducated (and ignorant) people also have grievances and deserve to be heard, you do not get to tell them that they are stupid, it is up for them to decide.

I would be in favor of having a license for younger people to vote based on life experience (voting before you earn any money/payed taxes or looked after someone is quite stupid IMO), but everyone should get the right to vote at some point (21 to 25 would be good for me), even not filling the criteria.

[Seranthor]

You forgot to mention that you have the exact same problem. People just voting for a party "because it's always been like that". Even worse since you only have 2 "choices"

Except, you dont have just 2 choices... At least 8 different parties fielded candidates in the 2016 Presidential Election.

[grexly75]

Here in Australia voting is mandatory and if one does not vote ie: one does not get their name crossed off the roll they get fined..

[De Lupe]

I think improving the education system to focus less on "required" classes like Algebra, Spanish, or [insert unnecessary classes that are forced onto students here] and more on actually useful and practical classes like Basic Auto-Maintenance, Basic Home-Maintenance, Basic Cooking Skills, Critical Thinking, Governments, Finances, and [insert topics that are actually applicable to real life here] would be a better way to remove (well...reduce) dumbassery from the voting polls. Especially the critical thinking classes.

If people want the "required" subjects, they can seek them out on their own time.

Here in Australia voting is mandatory and if one does not vote ie: one does not get their name crossed off the roll they get fined..

Note to self: Never move to Australia because fuck that.

[Very Tired]

Like a one month course you need to take

Oh, look at that. No one wants to vote anymore.

[rayvio]

in an almost ideal world you'd only be allowed to make an informed and intelligent vote
in an actual ideal world you wouldn't need to vote
sadly neither option is viable in the real world

as long as people are free, they're free to make mistakes

[Cruor]

I don't know how much this is a problem in America, but in Sweden a LOT of people vote on a particular party because "they've always voted for them" or "my father, and my father's father voted for them so I'll continue the tradition", no matter how different the party's politics is in comparison to when they first started to vote.

This suggests, at least to me, that these people aren't mature enough to vote, as they haven't read up on the current political landscape and made an informed decision.

Should we, or should we not, create some sort of license you need to get if you want to vote? Like a one month course you need to take, where you learn about the democratic system, that what a party thought was a good idea 50 years ago necessarily isn't the same today, and that you should keep up with political debates to find out what the different parties want today, and not in the past.

Of course the class is free, as it is a right for the people to vote, but it's not a right to vote on a stupid basis in my opinion. You need to at least have some know how.

It will be completely neutral, so no "this party good, that party bad", it's just meant to make sure that people use their own brain when making their decision, rather than just voting on what they've always voted on because "muh family tradition".

You should need a full time job or military service to vote. If you have not chosen to (possibly) fight for your government or support it with tax money, you should get no say in it. The fact that people on welfare can vote for people who will give them more welfare makes me sick.