• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More than 1 million Floridians with felony convictions get back their right to vote today

Cardinal said:
"Only people who are like me should be allowed to vote."
Click to expand...
Yes, when "like me" means they have at the very minimum an ability to understand the issues and the desire to make informed decisions.

Absolutely.

Cardinal said:
What you're admitting is that the only way Republicans can hold on to power is if the majority of the people are not allowed to participate in the Democratic process. What you're admitting, whether you're aware of it or not, is that you've lost the argument on all the policy debates.
Click to expand...

It would be "great for democracy" if we did away with the registration process entirely and had mandatory voting. 100% participation. Why aren't you supporting that? Why aren't the Democrats who you claim wish to "expand voting to the greatest number of people" pushing this?
 
Taylor said:
Yes, when "like me" means they have at the very minimum an ability to understand the issues and the desire to make informed decisions.

Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Because literacy tests worked so well in the past


It would be "great for democracy" if we did away with the registration process entirely and had mandatory voting. 100% participation. Why aren't you supporting that? Why aren't the Democrats who you claim wish to "expand voting to the greatest number of people" pushing this?
Click to expand...

I support mandatory voting
 
Taylor said:
Yes, when "like me" means they have at the very minimum an ability to understand the issues and the desire to make informed decisions.

Absolutely.
Click to expand...

"Only people who think like me on the issues should be allowed to vote."

Taylor said:
It would be "great for democracy" if we did away with the registration process entirely and had mandatory voting. 100% participation. Why aren't you supporting that? Why aren't the Democrats who you claim wish to "expand voting to the greatest number of people" pushing this?
Click to expand...

Personally I'm down for mandatory voting. I understand, however, that this is generally against the grain of American thinking and is highly unlikely to happen in my lifetime. Registration is here, however, and registration is what I have to work with. Therefore, so long as registration is what we've got, it should be automatic.
 
Cardinal said:
Let's say, solely for the sake of argument, that you're 100% right. Is it possible to want the right thing for a cynical motive?

What if I give to charity for no other reason than to make people believe that I'm generous. Is the act of giving to charity bad?
Click to expand...

Private individual-No do what ever you like
Government-Bad policy
 
Verax said:
When everyone votes Democrats win. If you don't like that, maybe the Republican party should update their platform.
Click to expand...

I think its already in the name, Republic
 
jdog21 said:
Private individual-No do what ever you like
Government-Bad policy
Click to expand...

So let's say I want the greatest number of citizens to vote because I believe that would help my party be in power. Is my motive for having the greatest number of people vote a reason for denying those people the right to vote?
 
Cardinal said:
Personally I'm down for mandatory voting. I understand, however, that this is generally against the grain of American thinking and is highly unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
It's against the grain of thinking in just about every first-world democracy.

Cardinal said:
Registration is here, however, and registration is what I have to work with. Therefore, so long as registration is what we've got, it should be automatic.
Click to expand...
And I have yet to hear a reason why.
 
Taylor said:
It's against the grain of thinking in just about every first-world democracy.


And I have yet to hear a reason why.
Click to expand...

Because the greatest number of citizens able to participate in a free and fair election is healthy for Democracy. I'm pretty sure I've stated several variations of this already.
 
Cardinal said:
So let's say I want the greatest number of citizens to vote because I believe that would help my party be in power. Is my motive for having the greatest number of people vote a reason for denying those people the right to vote?
Click to expand...

Your policy to do something should be on the merit of the policy. A policy leader should only focus the effects and merit of such policy. If it helps or hurts your party so what. But for a party platform to engage in changes to policy to solely benefit themselves during elections is what im talking about--Bad policy
 
jdog21 said:
Your policy to do something should be on the merit of the policy. A policy leader should only focus the effects and merit of such policy. If it helps or hurts your party so what. But for a party platform to engage in changes to policy to solely benefit themselves during elections is what im talking about--Bad policy
Click to expand...

Except you didn't argue against the policy (reinstated voting rights for ex-convicts); you argued against the motive for reinstating their voting rights. However, it sounds like you now appreciate that the motivation (wanting people to vote just to help their own party) is not relevant, and that the right to vote itself is the dominant factor.
 
sangha said:
IMO, it is a civic responsibility
Click to expand...
Not just a responsibility, but an obligation, correct?

Do you believe the same of military service? [Just curious - not trying to imply that you can't support one without the other.]
 
Cardinal said:
Because the greatest number of citizens able to participate in a free and fair election is healthy for Democracy. I'm pretty sure I've stated several variations of this already.
Click to expand...
Then I'll leave it at that - you seem more inclined to support what's best for democracy than what's best for the country, or you automatically assume that what's best for democracy is best for the country but can't really express why you believe that to be the case.
 
Cardinal said:
Except you didn't argue against the policy (reinstated voting rights for ex-convicts); you argued against the motive for reinstating their voting rights. However, it sounds like you now appreciate that the motivation (wanting people to vote just to help their own party) is not relevant, and that the right to vote itself is the dominant factor.
Click to expand...
I do disagree with the policy on common law and precedence grounds. And it is my opinion that the reason for the push and the backing of it was due to wanting to garnish more votes for an upcoming election and not for the benefit of the people of the state.
 
Taylor said:
Then I'll leave it at that - you seem more inclined to support what's best for democracy than what's best for the country, or you automatically assume that what's best for democracy is best for the country but can't really express why you believe that to be the case.
Click to expand...

If you're arguing that Democracy runs counter to the health of a country, then you need to explore what "best for the country" means to you and why Democracy runs counter to that.
 
jdog21 said:
I do disagree with the policy on common law and precedence grounds. And it is my opinion that the reason for the push and the backing of it was due to wanting to garnish more votes for an upcoming election and not for the benefit of the people of the state.
Click to expand...

Except if you believed that it can be argued on the merit of the policy, you wouldn't keep hiding behind the motivations of those wanting the policy, and you also wouldn't be hiding behind "common law and precedence grounds." As you said, "Your policy to do something should be on the merit of the policy." And yet you have said nothing about the merits of reinstating voting rights one way or the other.
 
Cardinal said:
If you're arguing that Democracy runs counter to the health of a country, then you need to explore what "best for the country" means to you and why Democracy runs counter to that.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that what's best for democracy is not always what's best for the country. For the former is useful only insofar as it supports the latter.
 
Taylor said:
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that what's best for democracy is not always what's best for the country. For the former is useful only insofar as it supports the latter.
Click to expand...

Can you provide an example of where Democracy is not best for the country? And by the way, I'm not interested in the "we're not a Democracy; we're a representative republic." We're a representative republic that operates on Democray both in principle and in practice.
 
Cardinal said:
Can you provide an example of where Democracy is not best for the country?
Click to expand...
I've already provided several. Here's another... removing the age requirement would be great for Democracy, but not great for the country.
 
Cardinal said:
Except if you believed that it can be argued on the merit of the policy, you wouldn't keep hiding behind the motivations of those wanting the policy, and you also wouldn't be hiding behind "common law and precedence grounds." As you said, "Your policy to do something should be on the merit of the policy." And yet you have said nothing about the merits of reinstating voting rights one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Right im not debating the merits of the policy or against the policy. Im questioning the motivations behind the leaders who voted on such a policy.
 
jdog21 said:
Right im not debating the merits of the policy or against the policy. Im questioning the motivations behind the leaders who voted on such a policy.
Click to expand...

Why are the motivations relevant if the policy is sound?
 
Taylor said:
I've already provided several. Here's another... removing the age requirement would be great for Democracy, but not great for the country.
Click to expand...

Really, all I saw you do was ask very stupid questions that made everyone believe you have idea what the words democracy or representative government even means.

You should have stopped after Cardinal caught you up on simple analogies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom