What Limits if any should be placed on voting?

[Goshin]

While this (and a bit more) would be great, and would perhaps allow the country to turn things around, it's never going to happen. Unfortunately.

probably not, no.


We're too obsessed with equality of outcomes.



But maybe when we're rebuilding after the total collapse.

 

[Arbo]

probably not, no.


We're too obsessed with equality of outcomes.



But maybe when we're rebuilding after the total collapse.

Oh, after the collapse, I'm sure we will be smart enough to be more specific in the language of the updated Constitution to ensure it is not abused and overstepped as it currently is.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That solves nothing if you can be registered in multiple locations, often in different states. Obviously one can obtain and renew multiple IDs if they are never checked against others. Your passport is good in all 57 states and contains no current address unless you added it yourself.

Nobody does that. Voter fraud is not a problem in this nation.

57 states, huh? You are so funny!

 

[aberrant85]

That solves nothing if you can be registered in multiple locations, often in different states. Obviously one can obtain and renew multiple IDs if they are never checked against others. Your passport is good in all 57 states and contains no current address unless you added it yourself.

57 states?

I assume that's a dig at Obama, who flubbed a line once and conservatives have been using it for years to create some sort of false equivalency with Bush's intellect.

I threw out the possibility of a basic education requirement in a different thread. Something like highschool diploma or GED. This would at least superficially guarantee that the electorate has the basic ability to reason. Public schools are also free which I think would satisfy your requirement of accessibility.

That smacks of poll testing. Like it or not, not everyone graduates high school or gets a GED.

Voting should be made as easy as possible. We have a pathetic voter turnout record in this country. If more people turned out, candidates would have to broaden their appeal rather than just cater to their base.

 

[AGENT J]

I assume that's a dig at Obama, who flubbed a line once and conservatives have been using it for years to create some sort of false equivalency with Bush's intellect.

really?

wow thats stupid and failed dig IF thats what it was even for twtt
not to mention whats the motivation, what does this topic or the conversation we were having have to do with obama? that would make it even more of a moronic post

and for the record only SOME conservatives use it, not fair to lump them all together, just saying

 

[Cephus]

Oh, after the collapse, I'm sure we will be smart enough to be more specific in the language of the updated Constitution to ensure it is not abused and overstepped as it currently is.

It's not abused, it's entirely ignored. The government realized they could just pretend it doesn't exist and anyone who called them on it, they can claim is a traitor and throw into prison forever.

 

[SBu]

I assume that's a dig at Obama, who flubbed a line once and conservatives have been using it for years to create some sort of false equivalency with Bush's intellect.



That smacks of poll testing. Like it or not, not everyone graduates high school or gets a GED.

Voting should be made as easy as possible. We have a pathetic voter turnout record in this country. If more people turned out, candidates would have to broaden their appeal rather than just cater to their base.

I understand how that could look to some. But all political correctness aside, is it unreasonable to require the general electorate to have some merit based prerequisite? Poll testing was different, you showed up and depending on who you were the poll operators would ask you a freebee or almost impossible question. I think having an easily achievable merit based prerequisite makes a lot more sense than assigning an arbitrary age to voter eligibility.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Had thought to find a discussion here about the requirement to actually register to vote being a requirement to vote.

If you are a citizen, why should you have to register? Just prove you are a citizen and live in the district you are attempting to vote.

 

[aberrant85]

I understand how that could look to some. But all political correctness aside, is it unreasonable to require the general electorate to have some merit based prerequisite? Poll testing was different, you showed up and depending on who you were the poll operators would ask you a freebee or almost impossible question. I think having an easily achievable merit based prerequisite makes a lot more sense than assigning an arbitrary age to voter eligibility.

Yeah, the thought of someone who knows nothing about anything would make me shiver, except that if enough stupid people voted randomly their votes would probably cancel each other out, so no big deal. I like the idea of voting based on merit in theory, but I think the real world effect would be too draconian for it to be practical.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ask a Democrat and they will say everybody in the boarders of the nation (citizen or not) should be able to vote. Ask a Republican only rich white men should be allowed to vote. Both only want what they want for political gain.

I have never heard any Republican make this claim. I have heard some say only people paying federal income taxes should vote in federal elections.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In the earliest days of our country, the "founders" only allowed land-owners to vote (setting aside the obvious disenfranchisement of blacks and women for the sake of philosophical argument). The idea being, one must have a stake in the country in order to have a say in its direction. Today, the only restrictions are age and citizenship.

Should there be any other restrictions on voting? Would you tweak it in any way? Is the current system too restrictive?

Yes.

We have long been in the position of having a majority of voters decide to confiscate other peoples money for selfish needs, rather than for what is necessary.

I would suggest that everyone still has a vote, but those having a net tax payment to the government rather than someone who has net benefits, has their vote count twice.

 

[jamesrage]

In the earliest days of our country, the "founders" only allowed land-owners to vote (setting aside the obvious disenfranchisement of blacks and women for the sake of philosophical argument). The idea being, one must have a stake in the country in order to have a say in its direction. Today, the only restrictions are age and citizenship.

The idea that only land owners have a stake is totally absurd. Most laws affect almost every American regardless if that American owns land, rents property, pays federal taxes or pays no federal taxes.If it was a tax increase on land owners then I agree that only land owners should have a say.It was a tax increase bill then only those who pay taxes should have a say.

Should there be any other restrictions on voting?

The only restrictions should be age and citizenship.

Would you tweak it in any way?

1.You show a state issued ID or state issued driver's license as the polling place. When you get and renew a state issued ID or state issued driver's license you show a birth certificate,certificate of naturalization, in rare cases a "certificate of Non availability" or "No record of the birth certificate" and a S.S. card.

2.no early voting.If you vote will be on the same day as everyone else in the country.

3. no mail in voting unless you are bed ridden or hospitalized.

4.No same day voting on the day you registered to vote unless the street address matches on both the voter registration card and state issued ID/driver's license.

Is the current system too restrictive?

Nope

 

[Arbo]

2.no early voting.If you vote will be on the same day as everyone else in the country.

I agree, if you can't figure out how to get the polls on the date you know DECADES in advance, it's your own damn fault.

3. no mail in voting unless you are bed ridden or hospitalized.

Or deployed, active duty in the military.

 

[jamesrage]

I agree, if you can't figure out how to get the polls on the date you know DECADES in advance, it's your own damn fault.



Or deployed, active duty in the military.

Last I checked there is a designated polling place for deployed and active duty troops to vote at.

 

[Arbo]

Last I checked there is a designated polling place for deployed and active duty troops to vote at.

Could you point to where that was on the submarine I served aboard?

 

[YoungConserv]

?????

im confused

how are you distinguishing citizenship from residence, what do you mean.

Because just because you are a citizen dies not mean you are eligible to vote in all races for instance someone in Arkansas can not vote in a election of Texas representative. Also I'm from Houston so I can not vote in a Dallas election. So see residency and citizenship do matter.

 

[AGENT J]

Because just because you are a citizen dies not mean you are eligible to vote in all races for instance someone in Arkansas can not vote in a election of Texas representative. Also I'm from Houston so I can not vote in a Dallas election. So see residency and citizenship do matter.

no he already answered and thats not what he meant

 

[rathi]

I'm sure our government would never use its ability to decide who can and can't vote to manipulate the outcome of elections in their favor. Clearly any and all restrictions would be created solely to ensure a competent voter, just like it was done historically right? I mean we totally can't trust idiots to vote, but we can totally trust the people currently elected by said idiots to decide who is a worthy voter, am I right?

 

[jamesrage]

Could you point to where that was on the submarine I served aboard?

I know that when I was stationed at Fort Hood we went to some place off post to go vote.But I guess being on ship or submarine out in the middle of nowhere you really can't get off to go vote.I guess in that case you would have to mail in the ballots.

 

[YoungConserv]

no he already answered and thats not what he meant

Well that's what I meant.

 

[Steelplate]

None. If you are a citizen, you should be able to vote.

 

[YoungConserv]

None. If you are a citizen, you should be able to vote.

Do should a resident of newyork be able to vote in the Texas senate race ?

 

[AGENT J]

Well that's what I meant.

well since my question wasnt to you (obvious evidence by the qoutes) what you meant is meaningless and has no barring.

 

[DVSentinel]

In the earliest days of our country, the "founders" only allowed land-owners to vote (setting aside the obvious disenfranchisement of blacks and women for the sake of philosophical argument). The idea being, one must have a stake in the country in order to have a say in its direction. Today, the only restrictions are age and citizenship.

Should there be any other restrictions on voting? Would you tweak it in any way? Is the current system too restrictive?

Absolutely!

Heinlein had best idea so far, if do not risk everything, then you earn nothing and voting should be earned not given freely.

 

[AngryOldGuy]