swimbikerunWe couldn't have an "intelligence" test so I guess something that removes direct election of the POTUS is the next best thing.
The Founders must've thought, "they were idiots in the past, there are idiots today, there will be idiots in the future: how best to prevent them from destroying the Republic?"
From what I've learned, the Founding Fathers had a form of prevention in place to prevent voting by those they deemed as having less of a stake in America's future: only those who actually owned property were allowed to vote. The indigent, renters, those who were vagabonds, and others who did not actually OWN land were not allowed to vote.
I'm not sure if that's the best way to go, but considering that you need a license for some of the simplest things, why shouldn't there be some form of accountability to prove that a person has been effectively educated in public debate, critical thinking, reasoning skills, and at least a year of intensive schooling on the history of America, her growth, her laws, and world society today?
It sounds as though people like this woman were avoiding social ctudies and history classes in high school in favor of either smoking cigarettes on the corner or taking Home Ec class. Either that, or they were allowed to pass by simply regurgitating information rather than actually absorbing it and learning from it.
You can clearly see that she has absolutely NO critical thinking or reasoning skills. As a result, I don't think she deserves a say in our country's future, because her "say" will be very harmful to many other people.
I don't mean to be elitist, but from even as far back as my teenage years, I always felt that we should vote with brains and reason, and not just emotion and flawed opinion.