No, you take away her right to vote because she's not exercising her authority responsibly.
Look... we have 80% of our voters (that is, 80% of the voters who can be botheredto show up) voting for asinine criteria. "I'm voting for McCain 'cuz I saw him on TV and he was funny". "I'm voting for Obama 'cuz he gives a good speech".

The good news is that the idiots on one side generally cancel out the idiots on the other side. The bad news is that candidates cannot expect to succeed in such an environment without playing to the lowest common denominator.
Responsibility and authority go hand-in-hand. Any attempt to divorce the two leads to disaster, as evidenced by our continual stream of bums in Washington.
Unfortunately, our system is set up to confer the highest authority on everybody regardless of how irresponsibly they exercise it. It may be egalitarian, but it will also lead to the destruction of our freedoms.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto

Guess what. Don't know? That idiot lady has a RIGHT to vote. Which I believe you admitted to. And by the very definition of a right she has the ability to exercise it on what ever terms she deems fit so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of another. Yes, I think that it is one of the most tragic and unfortunate constituents of the state of the country, yes the woman is essentially basing her vote off of an inconsequential nuance but, her vote is just that, hers under no limitations on your or any others part.

__________________
Noise is relative to the silence preceding it. The more absolute the hush, the more shocking the thunderclap.
-V

Key Maker,
We're in agreement. Yes it is her right and yes it is unfortunate that it is her right.

The question is *should it be* her right? I say no.
I think we'd all be better off if access to the ballot box was made more costly than it is at present. In addition to registration for jury duty, why not up the ante? Registering to vote signs you up for emergency response duty, and military draft too. And the ballots could have all traces of party affiliation removed. That way people would have to really want to vote and would be forced to do their homework before hand.

This could be changed with a Constitutional amendment, but I agree that the way things are is the way things are.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto

You raise an interesting point regarding the elimination of party affiliation on ballots. I'd truthfully never considered such a thing. But the problem then becomes what happens when the uninformed still go and vote? Here then we are suddenly, more than ever, having these people base their votes off of individual circumstances of the candidate as opposed to that persons political beliefs. Lots of people in this country only understand the base platforms of each party and use those to cast their votes. I'm not saying it wouldn't work just that implimentation of such a system would require a greater investment in time than merely eliminating the red and blue. Very interesting idea...

__________________
Noise is relative to the silence preceding it. The more absolute the hush, the more shocking the thunderclap.
-V

And maybe we could add poll taxes and literacy tests.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University, 1993

Easy, don't take away the right to vote. Put an extra question next to the candidate to see if someone knows what that candidate stands for.

eliminates all the "random" voters.

But i tend to agree. Although i don't think it's the voting really. People tend to have a opinion about things they have absolutely no knowledge about.

key maker,
I submit that we'd all be better off if that's the case. Votes *should be* cast for individuals rather than party affiliations, else the gross assumption is made that they actually adhere to their party's doctrine.

heikstheo,
No. the objective isn't to alter the balance for political favor, it's to weed out the dilatory voter. If you expect good government, it requires those who exercise the highest authority in the land to exercise it responsibly.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto

If that's the case, we shouldn't even be able to stop illegal aliens from voting. After all, it's "all men" not "all citizens."

Voting is not a right. Voting is a privilege. If voting were a right, you couldn't be compelled to register to do it.