Restricting voting priveleges in 2012

[ScottD]

Disagree.....
I think that land ownership is a good criteria because it shows responsibility....
...Before Acorn came around, that is....

You do know many successful, intelligent, hard working people live in apartments, right? This is especially true in larger cities, where it is a badge of honor to live in an apartment.

 

[Oftencold]

You have a problem with elitists, or pigs? I see evidence of neither in CC's post. Some people, perhaps many peope are indeed what a reasonable person would call "riff-raff." If you don't believe that, I suggest that you send some time in your regional food stamp office, welfare office or prison.

 

[Yossarian]

You have a problem with elitists, or pigs?

Yes.

I see evidence of neither in CC's post. Some people, perhaps many peope are indeed what a reasonable person would call "riff-raff."

EVERYONE should have the right to cast their vote.

Educational requirements for voting -> class ineligibility to participate in democracy -> interests of lower classes not served -> class disconnection from democracy & ignorance of democratic thought -> 1984 Proles.

A brilliant way to turn back the clock 300 years and totally undermine a huge amount of development that has gone into striving for equal democratic participation.

 

[Oftencold]

EVERYONE should have the right to cast their vote.

Yes, I understand that you assert this position, which I consider a rank absurdity.

Would you care to try to justify it?

 

[scourge99]

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?

I can't think of any way to restrict voting that could not be manipulated, as it has in the past, therefore I am for universal suffrage. Even for convicts.

 

[Yossarian]

It's an egalitarian principle. Universal suffrage is a far fuller expression of democracy than the oligarchial arrangement you espouse. It engages every member of the nation in the process of government or at least offers them the choice, and under democracy this is, as far as I am concerned, a right. Article 21 of the UNDHR agrees with me, or rather, I agree with it.

How can you not see that disallowing certain people the right to vote or otherwise concentrating power breeds ignorance and contempt? Perhaps you are simply ignorant of history, because it already has.

 

[Goshin]

So, how is requiring people to be able to read, elitism or disenfranchising the "lower classes"? Dude, if you can't read you have far more serious problems in society than worrying about who is President. You're going to have serious problems getting a job.

At any rate, the scheme I proposed would allow practically anyone to earn the right to vote. All you have to do is serve a term in the military, or a couple of years in something like the Peace Corps, or pay an extra 5% tax. Virtually anyone can do at least one of these things...the only test is, does voting mean enough to you to make one of those sacrifices?

And therein lies my point. If you're willing to make one of those sacrifices, you'll probably be a responsible voter.

 

[Oftencold]

It's an egalitarian principle. Universal suffrage is a far fuller expression of democracy than the oligarchial arrangement you espouse. It engages every member of the nation in the process of government or at least offers them the choice, and under democracy this is, as far as I am concerned, a right. Article 21 of the UNDHR agrees with me, or rather, I agree with it.

How can you not see that disallowing certain people the right to vote or otherwise concentrating power breeds ignorance and contempt? Perhaps you are simply ignorant of history, because it already has.

I will address two of the flaws in your now, out of several, is your misconception that one is "engaged" simply because one casts a vote.

How are the Ignorant who have taken no time or effort to acquire an understanding of the political issues at hand "engaged" when they cast a vote for an obviously unqualified candidature who has made them preposterous and undeliverable promises?

Is it an expression of egalitarian engagement, or simple theft through a vote when one uses that ballot to extort treasure from a neighbor while costing themselves nothing?

As for your last line, it is not standards that breed ignorance, it is the acceptance and empowerment of it that make it thrive. And empowered, deliberate ignorance should be held in contempt.

 

[Agnapostate]

It's only natural that republicanism will breed apathy and a misinformed electorate as a consequence of their detachment from active participation in the political process. That we see rightists promoting strategies that will exacerbate this active detachment even further is entirely predictable, along with their promotion of a potential blood tax to support their interventionistic endeavors and financial impositions that will likely disenfranchise the indigent above all, just as poll taxes were manipulated to harm a minority race in the past.

 

[Partisan]

You do know many successful, intelligent, hard working people live in apartments, right? This is especially true in larger cities, where it is a badge of honor to live in an apartment.

Ya know what?....
I'm thinking not too many....
"Badge of Honor"?....
You are joking, right?......:lol:

 

[Bassman]

Convicts shouldn't vote either.......:lol:

I would qualify that. Many states have allowances for first time felony offenders to regain their voting privileges. New York, for example, has in its Corrections Law, a provision known as a "Certificate of Relief From Civil Disabilities" what would allow a non-violent fist time felony offender to regain certain rights and privileges after a set amount of time has lapsed.

 

[DarkWizard12]

It's only natural that republicanism will breed apathy and a misinformed electorate as a consequence of their detachment from active participation in the political process. That we see rightists promoting strategies that will exacerbate this active detachment even further is entirely predictable, along with their promotion of a potential blood tax to support their interventionistic endeavors and financial impositions that will likely disenfranchise the indigent above all, just as poll taxes were manipulated to harm a minority race in the past.

Cool Story, bro.

 

[MyOwnDrum]

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.

So, you feel that those who don't pay taxes should have no say in how the government taxes? That would exclude many from voting for most candidates, since governmental representatives set taxes for everyone, no?

 

[Orion]

There are plenty of proto-democracies who experimented with only allowing certain classes to vote. It always fails because the disenfranchised portion rises up, either in popular protest (where it's permitted) or in bloody conflict. You have to grant everyone the equality to vote or it will just cause political turmoil down the road.

More importantly, you must realize that by removing the right from one group, you create an impetus for future groups to become disenfranchised. For all you know, the class you fall into could be next. In most proto-democracies where restricted voting took place, it took on various forms but almost always inevitably encompassed rich voters only. That excludes about 85-90% of the population.

Your ideas are sound in principle but in application they will be disastrous.

 

[TheProphet]

You should probably clarify that you mean for such restrictions to be administered on the state level. Otherwise, your stance would be hypocritical.

Caedon, let me say thanks so much for pointing my apparent mistake out to me, and if you will, for the record, please allow me to clarify my beliefs.

The Prophet's thoughts and beliefs on voting priveleges:​

In regard to ALL electoral races for public office, except those concerning positions within The U.S. Congress- **see note below**, I firmly believe that only the legislative bodies of the individual states should be vested with the power to extend, to deny, to regulate, or to de-regulate any voting priveleges and electoral procedures occuring inside the boundaries of their respective state. In my mind, with the exception of the Congressional offices mentioned above,ANY federal law concerning the extending or denying of voting priveleges or the regulation or de-regulation of election procedures of any or all states is unconstitutional and as such, the law should immediately be rendered null and void

**NOTE**​

An exception is granted for Congressional elections due to the fact that Art. 1, Sect. 4 of the Constitution empowers both the U.S. Congress and the individual state legislatures to "regulate the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives"​

​

-from this we see that absolutely NO powers at all were delegated to U.S. Congress in regards state, municipal, or any other elections for public office.

In addition to the non-delegation of powers to Congress regarding voting priveleges, keep in mind that the 10th Amendment of our Constitution states the following: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Therefore, based on the words of the Constitution, I surmise that our founding fathers believed in the same principles then as I believe now, that in order to preserve a pure republican society, and not simply majority rule, the members of the society must be educated and informed of the issues happening in their towns, counties, states, as well as throughout the whole nation and therefore should not be simply given the right to vote- voting is a serious responsibility that must be earned, just the same as a driver's license.

Now don't misunderstand, as I do personally AGREE with the philosophy and original intent of the Voter Rights Act of 1965, and I do understand the absolute importance of the law in terms of ending the practices of voter discrimination and disenfranchisement used so often against blacks, as well as other minorities from the mid 1800's until the 1970's. But, this law has ceased to be relevant in today's America because of things like universal equal education, as well as the many places at which people can register to vote. In some areas of the South- such as the county where I reside in NC- any and every change to voting regulations much be precleared by the federal gov't before being allowed to proceed, no matter how small or inconsequential. This preclearance system wastes an enormous amount of both time & money and should be eliminated.

 

[Oftencold]

So, you feel that those who don't pay taxes should have no say in how the government taxes? That would exclude many from voting for most candidates, since governmental representatives set taxes for everyone, no?

I oppose them voting on any measure (think "referendum," ) that will, if passed not burden that particular class of voters.

This would not preclude them from voting for representatives, who could then perform similar acts of despicable piracy in their name.

As an example, persons not owning land would be forbidden from voting to raise real estate taxes. I am undecided whether they should be allowed to vote to lower or maintain such taxes.