Stricter voting requirements?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Here's the voting requirements for the US.

The Supreme Court decision of March 21, 1972, declared lengthy requirements for voting in state and local elections unconstitutional and suggested that 30 days was an ample period. Most of the states have changed or eliminated their durational residency requirements to comply with the ruling, as shown. Note, for all states, in order to register to vote, an applicant must be a U.S. citizen, a legal resident of the state, and 18 years old on or before election day. Additionally, most states do not permit an individual to vote if he or she is a convicted felon currently serving time in prison or has been declared mentally incompetent by a court of law.

However, I think that's too lenient. I think anyone tried with a civil conviction, such as drug possession, assault, or destructive vandalism, should be barred from voting. Being a tax payer or retired should be a requirement, to prevent parasites and leeches upon society from having a voice. (Exceptions should be made for special cases such as disabled people). And last but not least, a high school diploma or equivalent.

Uh, really? Because someone doesn't pay taxes or has committed a misdemeanour they don't deserve a voice? Or are you just a troll?

...NO.

That means your "college experimentation" can lead to "you never get to vote for the rest of your life."

As for "those who do not pay taxes..." maybe, of course how is one going to keep track of that?

Are you the one to who will decide who is a parasite or leech on society? Because I'm pretty sure everyone has their own idea on that.

In my opinion, everyone who is mentally competent should have the option to vote. This includes criminals who have paid their debt to society.

We are already having trouble getting people to vote, so lets further restrict who gets to vote! Yeah, no. This sounds very "only affluent, older people should be able to vote". Are you a Republican by chance?

RedEyesBlackGamer:
We are already having trouble getting people to vote, so lets further restrict who gets to vote! Yeah, no. This sounds very "only affluent, older people should be able to vote". Are you a Republican by chance?

Yes, and I believe that having a more responsible pool of voters is necessary.

Mrhappyface 2:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
We are already having trouble getting people to vote, so lets further restrict who gets to vote! Yeah, no. This sounds very "only affluent, older people should be able to vote". Are you a Republican by chance?

Yes, and I believe that having a more responsible pool of voters is necessary.

And by responsible you mean taking away the vote of anyone who might vote Democrat, right?

Hazy992:

Mrhappyface 2:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
We are already having trouble getting people to vote, so lets further restrict who gets to vote! Yeah, no. This sounds very "only affluent, older people should be able to vote". Are you a Republican by chance?

Yes, and I believe that having a more responsible pool of voters is necessary.

And by responsible you mean taking away the vote of anyone who might vote Democrat, right?

Why do you think all Democrats are unemployed uneducated rabble that commit serious misdemeanors or worse?

Mrhappyface 2:

Hazy992:

Mrhappyface 2:

Yes, and I believe that having a more responsible pool of voters is necessary.

And by responsible you mean taking away the vote of anyone who might vote Democrat, right?

Why do you think all Democrats are unemployed uneducated rabble that commit serious misdemeanors or worse?

Hmm, yeah that's not even remotely true is it?

Hazy992:

Mrhappyface 2:

Hazy992:

And by responsible you mean taking away the vote of anyone who might vote Democrat, right?

Why do you think all Democrats are unemployed uneducated rabble that commit serious misdemeanors or worse?

Hmm, yeah that's not even remotely true is it?

So you're libertarian?

Mrhappyface 2:

Hazy992:

Mrhappyface 2:

Why do you think all Democrats are unemployed uneducated rabble that commit serious misdemeanors or worse?

Hmm, yeah that's not even remotely true is it?

So you're libertarian?

Nope, I'm a liberal if anything. I don't know how you came to the conclusion I'm libertarian from these posts.

Hazy992:

Mrhappyface 2:

Hazy992:

Hmm, yeah that's not even remotely true is it?

So you're libertarian?

Nope, I'm a liberal if anything. I don't know how you came to the conclusion I'm libertarian from these posts.

Never mind. I just believe that raising the standards would be for the benefit of both parties, since I believe in Confucianist principles that discipline and education are essential to being a good member of society. After all, I truly believe that a dual party system is one that promotes a constructive competition of ideologies. The founding fathers created the electoral college to insulate the process from the unprepared and uneducated public.

Mrhappyface 2:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
We are already having trouble getting people to vote, so lets further restrict who gets to vote! Yeah, no. This sounds very "only affluent, older people should be able to vote". Are you a Republican by chance?

Yes, and I believe that having a more responsible pool of voters is necessary.

Because all unemployed people are just leeches living off of the government, right? And if you make one mistake, you are barred from voting forever?

Mrhappyface 2:

Hazy992:

Nope, I'm a liberal if anything. I don't know how you came to the conclusion I'm libertarian from these posts.

Never mind. I just believe that raising the standards would be for the benefit of both parties, since I believe in Confectionist principles. After all, I truly believe that a dual party system is one that promotes a constructive competition of ideologies. The founding fathers created the electoral college to insulate the process from the unprepared and uneducated public.

I just fail to see how committing misdemeanours means your unprepared or uneducated.

Hazy992:

Mrhappyface 2:

Hazy992:

Nope, I'm a liberal if anything. I don't know how you came to the conclusion I'm libertarian from these posts.

Never mind. I just believe that raising the standards would be for the benefit of both parties, since I believe in Confectionist principles. After all, I truly believe that a dual party system is one that promotes a constructive competition of ideologies. The founding fathers created the electoral college to insulate the process from the unprepared and uneducated public.

I just fail to see how committing misdemeanours means your unprepared or uneducated.

I don't believe that the crimes I listed are relatively common or happen by accident.

Mrhappyface 2:

Hazy992:

Mrhappyface 2:

Never mind. I just believe that raising the standards would be for the benefit of both parties, since I believe in Confectionist principles. After all, I truly believe that a dual party system is one that promotes a constructive competition of ideologies. The founding fathers created the electoral college to insulate the process from the unprepared and uneducated public.

I just fail to see how committing misdemeanours means your unprepared or uneducated.

I don't believe that the crimes I listed are relatively common or happen by accident.

Taking drugs or minor assault isn't common? Really? And is it really justifiable to take away someone's right to vote for having some weed on them? I can see the argument for lifers and things like that but not this. That's far too excessive.

Hazy992:
Taking drugs or minor assault isn't common? Really? And is it really justifiable to take away someone's right to vote for having some weed on them? I can see the argument for lifers and things like that but not this. That's far too excessive.

I'm quite sure that bar fights almost never happen. Teens who commit vandalism are also obviously beyond redemption.

So basically limiting the voter pool down to something that fits your ideology. Besides that it's also racial discrimination whether you meant it that way or not. These requirements will affect minority voters in higher percentages than any white voters. I don't think you understand the repercussions of what your suggesting, or maybe you do but are fine with them.

Mrhappyface 2:

Hazy992:

Mrhappyface 2:

Never mind. I just believe that raising the standards would be for the benefit of both parties, since I believe in Confectionist principles. After all, I truly believe that a dual party system is one that promotes a constructive competition of ideologies. The founding fathers created the electoral college to insulate the process from the unprepared and uneducated public.

I just fail to see how committing misdemeanours means your unprepared or uneducated.

I don't believe that the crimes I listed are relatively common or happen by accident.

A quarter of our politicians would be out of office. Bush jr., Obama, and more than likely Clinton would therefore be ineligible to run for office or vote if they had gotten caught snorting/smoking a substance which all three did. I know Obama has admitted to it and so has bush and i'm guessing Clinton has, I mean seriously 70% of high schoolers have smoked marijuana.

Your post is so elitist.

dmase:
So basically limiting the voter pool down to something that fits your ideology. Besides that it's also racial discrimination whether you meant it that way or not. These requirements will affect minority voters in higher percentages than any white voters. I don't think you understand the repercussions of what your suggesting, or maybe you do but are fine with them.

Why do you have such low amount of faith in minorities? How can this be anything but good?

Mrhappyface 2:

dmase:
So basically limiting the voter pool down to something that fits your ideology. Besides that it's also racial discrimination whether you meant it that way or not. These requirements will affect minority voters in higher percentages than any white voters. I don't think you understand the repercussions of what your suggesting, or maybe you do but are fine with them.

Why do you have such low amount of faith in minorities? How can this be anything but good?

Riddle me this, which racial groups have the lowest high school graduations rates, highest welfare rates, and highest crime rates?

Mrhappyface 2:

Why do you think all Democrats are unemployed uneducated rabble that commit serious misdemeanors or worse?

Now, I'm not an American, so I don't give much of a damn about your internal politics there, but I'm calling the mod cavalry on this troll.

*waits for the "har har getting warned/suspended makes me right" with a swatter*

Not sure if troll, but I'll respond regardless.

That's a fucking horrible idea. People who commit a minor drug offense should never get to vote ever? Why the hell does that disqualify someone in your eyes? And "leeches on society"? What the hell does that even mean? How many people do you actually think just sit in the homeless shelter collecting welfare and doing nothing? In case you didn't know, welfare doesn't get you much. Fuck, I could work 20 hours a week on minimum wage and make more than someone whose only income was welfare. And besides, I thought the US was supposed to be a democracy. That means everyone's vote counts, not just the rich, law-abiding white men.

Good God! I though Escapist was a progressive, forward thinking site! Isn't putting a filter on voting a plus for society, since more qualified people can vote? This is true democracy I'm talking about, where the individuals have proven they can be independent and form decisions for themselves: If you can keep yourself from committing crimes, that shows discipline. If you can get a job and pay taxes, that shows responsibility. I'm not asking people to have 6 digit incomes and be the reincarnation of Christ!

i saw this and instantly assumed it was a republican. you just have to look at the southern states to see how the republicans have made it harder for the poor and black to vote. america is already a piss poor example of equal representation. in australia 97% of people vote at the federal election, in america its less than 60%. so already if a guy gets 50% of the vote hes actually only being voted for by 50% of 60% of the voting population. of course that number is way down for other elections

think about this. currently in america there are over 5 million convicted felons who are no longer allowed to vote because of a mistake in their past. note these are people who have served their jail time. of those 5 million a large majority are in groups who historically are strong democrat voters.

Mrhappyface 2:
Good God! I though Escapist was a progressive, forward thinking site! Isn't putting a filter on voting a plus for society, since more qualified people can vote? This is true democracy I'm talking about, where the individuals have proven they can be independent and form decisions for themselves: If you can keep yourself from committing crimes, that shows discipline. If you can get a job and pay taxes, that shows responsibility. I'm not asking people to have 6 digit incomes and be the reincarnation of Christ!

Your under the fox news delusion that progressives are elitists right?

Mrhappyface 2:
Being a tax payer or retired should be a requirement, to prevent parasites and leeches upon society from having a voice. (Exceptions should be made for special cases such as disabled people). And last but not least, a high school diploma or equivalent.

So you don't like the disabled voting?

Lucien Pyrus:

Mrhappyface 2:
Being a tax payer or retired should be a requirement, to prevent parasites and leeches upon society from having a voice. (Exceptions should be made for special cases such as disabled people). And last but not least, a high school diploma or equivalent.

So you don't like the disabled voting?

No, they have a legit reason why they can't work. I don't think that physical aptitude should disbar someone from voting as long as they are an educated, responsible citizen.

reonhato:
i saw this and instantly assumed it was a republican. you just have to look at the southern states to see how the republicans have made it harder for the poor and black to vote. america is already a piss poor example of equal representation. in australia 97% of people vote at the federal election, in america its less than 60%. so already if a guy gets 50% of the vote hes actually only being voted for by 50% of 60% of the voting population. of course that number is way down for other elections

think about this. currently in america there are over 5 million convicted felons who are no longer allowed to vote because of a mistake in their past. note these are people who have served their jail time. of those 5 million a large majority are in groups who historically are strong democrat voters.

I have to agree with you on the consensus more people should vote, but not more people should be allowed to vote. That really is a tragedy.

dmase:

Mrhappyface 2:
Good God! I though Escapist was a progressive, forward thinking site! Isn't putting a filter on voting a plus for society, since more qualified people can vote? This is true democracy I'm talking about, where the individuals have proven they can be independent and form decisions for themselves: If you can keep yourself from committing crimes, that shows discipline. If you can get a job and pay taxes, that shows responsibility. I'm not asking people to have 6 digit incomes and be the reincarnation of Christ!

Your under the fox news delusion that progressives are elitists right?

No, progressives want what is best for the people, so they put in new, more productive measures to replace antiquated ones. To progress means to bring everyone forward, so by raising the bar, people will be encouraged to become better.

Mrhappyface 2:

dmase:

Mrhappyface 2:
Good God! I though Escapist was a progressive, forward thinking site! Isn't putting a filter on voting a plus for society, since more qualified people can vote? This is true democracy I'm talking about, where the individuals have proven they can be independent and form decisions for themselves: If you can keep yourself from committing crimes, that shows discipline. If you can get a job and pay taxes, that shows responsibility. I'm not asking people to have 6 digit incomes and be the reincarnation of Christ!

Your under the fox news delusion that progressives are elitists right?

No, progressives want what is best for the people, so they put in new, more productive measures to replace antiquated ones. To progress means to bring everyone forward, so by raising the bar, people will be encouraged to become better.

And how is willfully suppressing voters' rights "progress"?

The only people who would support this are conservatives, who've already proven they're willing to commit voter fraud to win elections, and have already tried enacting new laws taking away voting rights from college students and others. That's not progress. That's reprehensible. You're effectively taking the vote away from the poorest people, who need this government's help the most. You're disgusting. If this isn't a troll topic, you're the worst person I've encountered today. Congratulations on that.

Mrhappyface 2:

dmase:

Mrhappyface 2:
Good God! I though Escapist was a progressive, forward thinking site! Isn't putting a filter on voting a plus for society, since more qualified people can vote? This is true democracy I'm talking about, where the individuals have proven they can be independent and form decisions for themselves: If you can keep yourself from committing crimes, that shows discipline. If you can get a job and pay taxes, that shows responsibility. I'm not asking people to have 6 digit incomes and be the reincarnation of Christ!

Your under the fox news delusion that progressives are elitists right?

No, progressives want what is best for the people, so they put in new, more productive measures to replace antiquated ones. To progress means to bring everyone forward, so by raising the bar, people will be encouraged to become better.

You think your idea is progressive? It makes two classes of citizens, the ones that have a voice and the ones that don't. Caste systems are thousands of years old and each caste has powers that the one below it doesn't. Sorry but no this isn't progressive or helpful in any way.

So hypothetically after these changes are made which laws in the US will change? In your opinion of course.

dmase:

Mrhappyface 2:

dmase:

Your under the fox news delusion that progressives are elitists right?

No, progressives want what is best for the people, so they put in new, more productive measures to replace antiquated ones. To progress means to bring everyone forward, so by raising the bar, people will be encouraged to become better.

You think your idea is progressive? It makes two classes of citizens, the ones that have a voice and the ones that don't. Caste systems are thousands of years old and each caste has powers that the one below it doesn't. Sorry but no this isn't progressive or helpful in any way.

So hypothetically after these changes are made which laws in the US will change? In your opinion of course.

It's not asking for a lot: Obey the law, graduate from high school, and get a job.

Mrhappyface 2:
It's not asking for a lot: Obey the law, graduate from high school, and get a job.

Why does having a job make one more qualified for voting than someone who's unemployed?

Mrhappyface 2:

It's not asking for a lot: Obey the law, graduate from high school, and get a job.

That's not an answer to my question.

Which laws do you think will change once all voters must have a high school diploma, never committed even felonies, and have a job.

Edit: Felonies, replace with misdemeanors.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked