• 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!

Restricting voting priveleges in 2012

T

TheProphet

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why is it that everytime election season rolls aound we always hear the adage " exercise your constitutional right to vote " when actually the constitution does not in anyway guarantee anyone the right to vote. What the constitution does say is icluded in the 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments will collectively say that The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color,sex or previous condition of servitude. Also, no citizen be denied a vote by the United States or any State for failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

When the framers constructed our Constitution they brilliantly allowed each individual state to determine the requirements for voting eligibility, remember, during this time only local & state representatives, and the House of Reps. were directly elected by the people- The Senate was to be chosen by the state legislature, later changed in the 17th Amdmt, and the President was to be chosen then as now by the vote of a slate of Electors, which were chosen by the state legislature. The framers knew how dangerous it would be to have a system of direct election by popular vote, as well as how unfair it would be to smaller states.

The bottom line I'm trying to get at is that so many people who vote in our elections, should not be allowed to vote because they are ignorant of both the issues at hand, as well as the platform and history of the candidates that are running for election. I propose that before being allowed to register to vote that each person shall be required to pass a general knowledge test, similar to the citizenship exam, on the workings of the US government, if they pass they obtain the right to vote, if they fail then they are denied the right to vote- simple as that.

The Voter Rights Act of 1965, which was extended by GW Bush needs to be amended to void the ban on literacy tests- The years of being able to use these tests in a discriminatory way are long past, as now all people are granted opportunity of equal education regardless of race, gender or any other factor. Some people choose to take advantage of this education and some don't, if the person because of their personal choices are unable to pass a test that we require immigrants to take in order to gain citizenship then they should not be able to vote. We must weed out the ignorant, and uninformed who simply turn our elections into a popularity contest with the winner being the candidate that promises more gov't handouts. We must take our society back from these people

What are your opinions on this issue?
 

My opinion is: If you don't own property, you can't vote....
...And corntrary to Democratic beliefs, if you are dead or a cornvicted felon, you can't vote.....
 
You should probably clarify that you mean for such restrictions to be administered on the state level. Otherwise, your stance would be hypocritical.


Call me crazy but I hesitate in general at the idea of limiting or restricting the right to vote by people of a certain class. Perhaps I am overly indulging in a slippery slope fallacy but I dislike the introduction or encouragement of regulation of voting based on certain subjective requirements. You mentioned literacy. What level of literacy? Who determines that level? Who determines which part of the government should be tested?

My primary concern could be summarized as this: I do not believe that the good which would result from this initiative would meet or exceed the harm that could result from the immediate abuse of such a rule or the introduction of unfair restrictions in the future.
 
I agree with the above. The concept of democracy can only be enhanced by retaining the freedom to vote. Down here in Australia, voting is compulsory; we're not doing too badly.
 
PeteEU said:
Welcome to 1774
Click to expand...


There should be a little more to it than breathing air to qualify.....
Too many riff-raff get to vote.....
How do you think Obama got elected?.....
A: By those who felt 'entitled' to "Obama Bucks".....
 
At least a good sense of humor is being retained. :mrgreen:

I've thought for a while that universal sufferage may have been the Great Mistake of our Great Experiment.

I think everyone should have the opportunity and the possibility to earn the right to vote.

Chiefly I think it should be earned by doing something that serves your country in some definable manner.

Military service would be one obvious one, as in the Heinlein story.

Possibly some other types of non-military service would be acceptible also, like spending two years building housing for the poor in return for three-hots-and-a-cot.

Voluntarily paying additional taxes for the privilege would be another... pay an extra 5% of your income annually, you get to vote.

People tend not to value what comes too easily. What are the figures? Half the registered voters don't vote in most elections? Half of those who could vote aren't even registered? I rest my case.

You value something you had to work for, and having to do something in service to your nation would tend to weed out the indifferent and selfish.

G.
 
Goshin said:
People tend not to value what comes too easily. What are the figures? Half the registered voters don't vote in most elections? Half of those who could vote aren't even registered? I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Don't you realize that this in itself makes everything else you said unnecessary?

Who do you think the ones who don't vote are? They are the illiterate and poorly educated. Restrictions on their right to vote are unnecessary (and I find them distasteful as well, personally) because usually if a person doesn't know squat about who's running, they won't vote.
 


Dav, have you been to the polls anytime in the last twenty years? The illiterate, uninformed and apathetic vote quite regularly. In fact, various organizations take buses out and round them up, and bus them to the polls. There was a case a few years back of a busload of people from the homeless shelter being taken to the polls...some of them said they'd been promised a bottle of wine if they voted. :doh
 
It should only be 30+ year old white males with land and permission from the ruler who should be able to vote. ... the good old days.
 
PeteEU said:
It should only be 30+ year old white males with land and permission from the ruler who should be able to vote. ... the good old days.
Click to expand...

Disagree.....
I think that land ownership is a good criteria because it shows responsibility....
...Before Acorn came around, that is....
 
PeteEU said:
It should only be 30+ year old white males with land and permission from the ruler who should be able to vote. ... the good old days.
Click to expand...

Enough with the strawmen. Nobody is saying that, so quit being a disingenous troll.
 

The illiterate make up a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. Even if they did vote, they would hardly sway things one way or the other.

The apathetic voting is contradictory, because if they were truly apathetic, they wouldn't vote. The only way they would vote is if they were either physically brought to the polls by an outside force or if they were promised something in return, like the case you mentioned. However, if cases like that actually grab attention when they happen, I would imagine that they don't happen very often.

The uninformed is another matter... but in this day in age, you only really need 15-20 minutes of research, and that's rounding up, to make an informed decision (for that matter, elections nowadays, particularly presidential elections, go on WAY too long). Unfortunately, even some of the most informed people vote exclusively on party lines, but that is a different issue altogether.

In any case, the only way it would even matter whether or not these people voted is if they made up a significant portion of the voting population. Since only half of the population, more or less, votes, what you're saying is either that a lot of informed people choose not to vote (which makes little sense; if they spend so much energy getting informed, why waste it?) or that very, very few people in this country are actually literate, informed, and involved all in one, which is a problem in itself that voting restrictions wouldn't be nearly enough to solve.
 
Coon County said:
Disagree.....
I think that land ownership is a good criteria because it shows responsibility....
...Before Acorn came around, that is....
Click to expand...

Where, they goes a large chunk of New York not able to vote. Good plan!

I see no reason to put restrictions on the right to vote other than what is there. Rule by the elite is not a good idea.
 

I too have been questioning the wisdom of universal sufferage. Democracy only works when there is an informed, active, intelligent electorate to hold represenatives accountable. I'd say the American electorate falls short of that standard as a group.

I'm not entirely sure earning it is the way to go. It doesn't really address the issue. You can pay a fee, or serve in the military, or whatever, and still be grossly uninformed. The problem I have with voter restrictions, is I think we could use voter compentency requirements, but I certainly don't trust the government to fairly and unbiasedly administer such requirements. The potential for abuse is far too great and would create and even worse situation than the one we'd be trying to fix with such measures.
 

I don't have a problem with an uninformed electorate, it just means we get the government we deserve. Your second paragraph nails the problems though. I could pay a fee, I own property, I am a veteran, I am reasonably well informed, so I could vote under most potential situations...take that for what it is worth.
 
Most people decide who to vote for from TV ads, YouTube and other shallow mass media sources. Why should we require that they be literate?
 
(I personally vote for the candidate who irritates me the least)
 
While I understand what many of you are saying I believe our government is already somewhat built to withstand the uninformed voter. We are a republic, once we vote someone to power their only contract to us is the constitution. We try to avoid someone uninformed having any legislative, judicail, or executive power by placing age restrictions on these induviduals.

I am not sure if restricting the voting privileges would have as much affect on those who are voted onto office than if we further restricted the prereqrisites of those who could run for office.
 
Coon County said:
My opinion is: If you don't own property, you can't vote....
...And corntrary to Democratic beliefs, if you are dead or a cornvicted felon, you can't vote.....
Click to expand...

So pop stars could vote but a significant portion of university lecturers couldnt?
 
I completely support the idea of a literacy test, in the form of a high school diploma or equivalent.

Further, I would exclude private citizens from voting on any taxation scheme whatever which would not upon its adoption encumber them.

As an informal measure, I would support an educational initiative encouraging people to avoid voting on issues that they don't understand.

Seriously, I think the country would function best with about a 20% voting rate, composed of informed, engaged voters.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…