saved Vs. smart

I sure wouldn't. In the first place a stupid christian wouldn't be elected. And no GWB is not stupid, but is not a great communicator, unless it's scripted.

 

no I mean when his speaches are written down to read, rather than speaking off the cuff. He's not a great communicator as were Reagan and Clinton, even though better educated.

 

hmmm so why would he say "I. never. had. sex. with. that. woman." if he had all that common sense?

Anyway, you are correct with the comment on President Bush speaking off the cuff. For people who do a lot of public speaking or write speeches, some of the things he says make you cringe. But some people like it...they say it shows he is just a real person, not a talking head. I actually overheard that on a train in DC. I agree.

 

I think that in order to run for president we should require every candidate to list all the sexual affairs they've had in their entire life. Then we could insure ourselves against another situation like we had with Clinton.

In addition, I think we should make this a requirement for all current elected federal officials. Think that would do the trick? I'd like to hear GW's stories about when he used to get drunk and "fraternize" with the sorority girls at Texas.

 

I think we should give a basic skills test, including political knowledge, in order to vote.

 

A very elitist notion. The voting population would be cut by 75% or more. Would said political knowledge test be only on basic government, or an in depth knowledge of the constitution, state constitution, amendments, bills, and those in office currently. (Not to mention the candidates)

 

At least basic government and current events.

I think Asimov may have had the right idea: Every citizen is permitted one vote. You can get more votes by showing knowledge on basic government, knowledge of the Constitution, education, etc., with a maximum of x number of votes.

He was as liberal as they come, and he felt that this would hurt liberal views, as, in his opinion, most intelligent people vote conservatively, but at least that way you don't have the lowest common denominator deciding the next president, senator, etc. The fear factor ("He wants your mother to eat dog food!") would not play as big a role, and it would be much more difficult to buy votes.

 

...but at least that way you don't have the lowest common denominator deciding the next president, senator, etc. The fear factor ("He wants your mother to eat dog food!") would not play as big a role, and it would be much more difficult to buy votes.

True, although I don't agree with it, in that more knowledge equals more votes. Also, his views on intelligence and conservatism are interesting. Higher education tends to have a liberalizing effect in political awareness, according to the majority of studies I have seen. That is not to say someone must have some form of higher education to be politically educated. One thing is certain, regardless of the political behavior of the politically educated, the "masses" were never highly thought of. Otherwise we would not have the electoral college. If I had a quarter for every time one of my professors used the term "the masses are ...", (I think you get the point), I would be extremely wealthy.

 

He said "intelligent" people, not "educated". Most studies do show that more education liberalizes. However, not all educated people are more intelligent; they are more knowledgable. Look at the studies based on intelligence. (I haven't looked at any myself in about a decade, so things might have changed.)

I would also prefer that a majority be required to win any election, instead of a plurality as we have it now.

I also don't think the states should be all-or-nothing when it comes to the EC.

 

He said "intelligent" people, not "educated". Most studies do show that more education liberalizes. However, not all educated people are more intelligent; they are more knowledgable.

I agree, that is why I qualified that "politically educated", does not necessarily mean "higher educated". I was acknowledging the difference, albeit not very clearly, in retrospect.

I would also prefer that a majority be required to win any election, instead of a plurality as we have it now.

I also don't think the states should be all-or-nothing when it comes to the EC.

Again, I agree with you. Personally, I would like to get rid of the EC altogether. I am still a firm believer in "one person, one vote", though. I am more inclined to change the way politics is covered in the media, especially TV news coverage, as this is where voters tend to receive the majority of their "political" knowledge. James Fiskin's The Voice of the People: Public Opinion & Democracy, is an excellent read. His theories on adapting small group democracy to the nation-state are quite interesting. His idea for the National Issues Convention is quite intriguing, also.

 

It is tempting to exclude stupid, ignorant people from voting - but don't they/we deserve representation, too?

 

I think the states should always be one person one vote (unless there is a scaled system as I mentioned earlier), but because of population centers, I think the founding fathers were wise in the representative form of government and the EC. If not for that, the 5 most populous cities in the US would control national elections and national politics.

 

ABSOLUTELY.

Stupid and ignorant might be just a matter of perception.

 

Hope of Glory said:

"I think the states should always be one person one vote (unless there is a scaled system as I mentioned earlier), but because of population centers, I think the founding fathers were wise in the representative form of government and the EC. If not for that, the 5 most populous cities in the US would control national elections and national politics."

Just look at what happened in Washington State last governor election -- King County (call that Seattle) elected Gregoire as governor. Or look at US Senator Cantwell -- 38 of 39 counties voted against her, but King County elected her! I, too, am glad for the EC. I think we should have one at the state level, too!

Bill