Stricter voting requirements?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

dmase:

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.

Serious misdemeanors! I'm not talking about speeding and graffiti because that would be retarded. I'm talking about serious vandalism such as arson and destruction of property,malicous assault and battery, and illegal drug use.

reonhato:
in australia 97% of people vote at the federal election, in america its less than 60%.

That's because you're forced to, by law, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeppers

So if it's only 97%, does that mean that every election, around 3% breaks the law? EDIT: That isn't meant to be confrontational. I'm asking if there are exemptions to get out of voting and if that accounts for the 3%

Godavari:

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?

You pay taxes and contribute to society.

Getting past the fact that it is an atrocious idea, what happens when drug laws are inevitably loosened. Do the tens of millions of people who are ineligible to vote due to possession of drugs get their rights back?

The idea that you go to jail in the US for what any other developed country gives you a slap on the wrist for is bad enough. To take away voting rights as well, it is borderline police state.

Mrhappyface 2:

Godavari:

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?

You pay taxes and contribute to society.

I don't think you understood my question. I asked why someone without a job was less qualified to vote. How does not paying taxes (which is bullshit anyway, since they still have sales taxes) make someone less able to make decisions and voice their opinion on political matters?

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!

Hey, but really, if you're not making a 6 digit income, you're a parasite of those that are. If you showed even more discipline and determination, and got a real job that gave 7 digit incomes, you'd show even more responsibility and ability to effectively lead, now wouldn't you? After all, why should you with your 5 digit income that only pays a fraction of the tax income dictate what happens in this country, when people with 7+ digit incomes have more at stake. That sounds entirely reasonable doesn't it to you? Or are you too irresponsible and lazy to get a 7 figure income job?

If you're a progressive forward thinker, you can't argue against the notion that if somebody making 50,000 dollars a year is automatically more qualified to vote than somebody making 10,000 dollars a year, then somebody making a million dollars a year is multiples more qualified. And if I shouldn't settle for the third best voter, why the hell should we settle for the second best?

And if you don't own land (and I mean, actual real estate, not just a single farm house), why should you get to decide what happens to the country or the laws that govern that land and it's ownership.

And hey, if you do anything wrong, ever, in the history of your life, even if you serve your sentence, and pay your debt to society, we should hang it over your head for all eternity, even if it's a minor traffic violation. After all, I don't want my country led by people that don't know what a fucking red light or stop sign is.

Also I think that there should be a bail of 100,000 dollars to vote. You'll get the money back at the end of the year, but realistically if you can't be responsible enough to save 100,000 dollars up every 4 years, and then get it back in 2 months, then realistically you can't be responsible enough to vote for where 10 trillion dollars goes or gets spent for 4 years.

Mrhappyface 2:

dmase:

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.

Serious misdemeanors! I'm not talking about speeding and graffiti because that would be retarded. I'm talking about serious vandalism such as arson and destruction of property,malicous assault and battery, and illegal drug use.

Why. Graffiti and speeding cost more money and lives to innocent people than drug possession ever did. And if you say "because it's hard to not speed of spray tags" what sort of discipline or example are you setting that you should be allowed to tell me who I should or shouldn't vote for?

You being fucked up on drugs might make you actively contribute less to society (which is now a thing, I guess, that I get to care about. I now have the right to care about how much you contribute to me, before your voice means anything), but speeding and getting into a wreck or tagging my property actively costs me money. And yet I should forgive you for the latter? Fat chance sir.

Mrhappyface 2:

Godavari:

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?

You pay taxes and contribute to society.

Again, how does your contributing very minorly to society in your own way make you equally qualified to vote than somebody that is capable of contributing to society with their net worth in the millions?

When trillions of dollars are being moved, at some point your paying 10% of your meager income to taxes to the poor paying about 9% of their even more meager income to taxes (and there's no such a thing as not paying taxes for the poor; even without income they pay state, local, sales, exise, payroll, and if they manage to own any, property taxes) becomes a negligible difference. If they're a drop in the bucket, you're 2 drops in that same bucket, and both equally, relatively speaking, insignificant.

If I drop a whole cup of water into the bucket, shouldn't I be able to look at your two drops and their one drop and be disdainful of both?

Mrhappyface 2:

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.

I'll do away with the sarcasm a bit to address this (although the obvious sarcastic response is, 'if raising the bar for voting makes it so that everybody becomes better, then why set the bar in a 6 figure range, when it could be set even higher').

If you want to what's best for people, all people, then you do what's best for them, all of them, not just those that you think are 'worthy' or 'productive', and what's best for them is for them to have a voice.

Bringing everyone forward means getting them access to better opportunities and education, not barring them from being allowed to get access or vote for access to those because they weren't already in possession of either.

So... Screw the civil rights movement basically. Yep, that sounds like a wonderful idea. -_-

So when around 5% of your populace lose their job because of the banking crisis, they cease having the right to vote? So when somebody grows up in a poor area and doesn't find a job due to the economic circumstances, they don't have the right to vote? You've got to be kidding.

CM156:

reonhato:
in australia 97% of people vote at the federal election, in america its less than 60%.

That's because you're forced to, by law, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeppers

So if it's only 97%, does that mean that every election, around 3% breaks the law? EDIT: That isn't meant to be confrontational. I'm asking if there are exemptions to get out of voting and if that accounts for the 3%

donkey votes, and its hardly ever really enforced anyway unless you a repeat offender.

compulsory voting is a far better system than americas. our politicians dont have to spend 10s of millions of dollars just to make you go vote.

americas system is just screwed up. a combination of non compulsory voting, a 2 party system and FPTP voting in most areas results in a majority of people not actually getting representation, this is a particular issue in bible belt states. canada and the UK i believe are the only other developed nations who use the FPTP voting system, both have that 3rd party that america does not have though, i dont know if that helps or not but meh.

anyway, there is a reason australia has what is often considered one of the best election systems in the world. personally i like my vote to actually count for something.

reonhato:

CM156:

reonhato:
in australia 97% of people vote at the federal election, in america its less than 60%.

That's because you're forced to, by law, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeppers

So if it's only 97%, does that mean that every election, around 3% breaks the law? EDIT: That isn't meant to be confrontational. I'm asking if there are exemptions to get out of voting and if that accounts for the 3%

donkey votes, and its hardly ever really enforced anyway unless you a repeat offender.

compulsory voting is a far better system than americas. our politicians dont have to spend 10s of millions of dollars just to make you go vote.

americas system is just screwed up. a combination of non compulsory voting, a 2 party system and FPTP voting in most areas results in a majority of people not actually getting representation, this is a particular issue in bible belt states. canada and the UK i believe are the only other developed nations who use the FPTP voting system, both have that 3rd party that america does not have though, i dont know if that helps or not but meh.

To be fair, I think the whole "Rock the vote" thing is stupid, and the feds shouldn't be spending money to try to get people to vote.

Also, Germany, Russia, all of Scandanavia, and Portugal all don't force their citizens to vote. Only 10 countries actually enforce it, so I'd say it's in the minority.

That's because, under American law, voting is a right. It is not an obligation. It's like Free Speech: I can speak my mind, but I can also shut it. I'm not obligated to follow my own first Amendment Rights. Different legal systems though. Under British Common Law (Which American law is based after), choosing your leaders is a right. Not something you have to do. And what are we to do? Fine people who don't vote? Pretty sure that wouldn't fly in America. Just sayin'

EDIT: Keep in mind, I'm talking about American law here, and what will likely happen. Remember: Us Americans are all about freedom. Like the freedom not to choose.

reonhato:
donkey votes, and its hardly ever really enforced anyway unless you a repeat offender.

compulsory voting is a far better system than America's. our politicians don't have to spend 10s of millions of dollars just to make you go vote.

America's system is just screwed up. a combination of non compulsory voting, a 2 party system and FPTP voting in most areas results in a majority of people not actually getting representation, this is a particular issue in bible belt states. Canada and the UK i believe are the only other developed nations who use the FPTP voting system, both have that 3rd party that America does not have though, i don't know if that helps or not but meh.

What's worse, is that our voting is First Past the Post, and it's done that way in the electoral college, where the posts are broken up in very specific ways to encourage some states to vote one way even if they're otherwise contested. All of one state's electoral college votes can go one way if that state has a 51% majority.

It leads to instances where even despite all these handicaps, a person can still lose the popular vote and take the election.

And this isn't considering voting shenanigans, and I don't even mean a guy voting 3 times or in 3 states, but I mean Gerrymandering, trying to discourage people from voting by making sure their polling place is over used and understaffed, 'equipment' failure (I don't personally think that the voting machines have to be rigged to mess with an election, I think they just have to suck enough that they break down every 2 minutes, and with 2 grannies 'fixing' them, it takes forever for as single vote to go through), the media jumping on and deciding the election before the voting is done (making voting in absentee ballots worthless. Once Fox and CNN have 'decided' the president, that's it, and if another president 'really' wins later, it's gonna be a huge mess), etc.

But yeah, what we really need is for less people to vote and more hurdles.

reonhato:

donkey votes, and its hardly ever really enforced anyway unless you a repeat offender.

Doesn't "donkey vote" refer to going in and getting your name ticked off, then invalidating your ballot or never filling one out?
One your name is ticked off they don't really care if your vote was even real, they won't even know.

It works, if you don't want to give somebody your vote then don't, but go though the motions.

CM156:

reonhato:
in australia 97% of people vote at the federal election, in america its less than 60%.

That's because you're forced to, by law, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeppers

So if it's only 97%, does that mean that every election, around 3% breaks the law? EDIT: That isn't meant to be confrontational. I'm asking if there are exemptions to get out of voting and if that accounts for the 3%

Do you know the punishment for not voting without a valid reason...its a $20 fine, thats it.

The term "compulsory voting" is actually misleading as well as it is not compulsory to vote, you just have to turn up to a voting booth on election day.

Knight Templar:

reonhato:

donkey votes, and its hardly ever really enforced anyway unless you a repeat offender.

Doesn't "donkey vote" refer to going in and getting your name ticked off, then invalidating your ballot or never filling one out?
One your name is ticked off they don't really care if your vote was even real, they won't even know.

It works, if you don't want to give somebody your vote then don't, but go though the motions.

Donkey Vote is a term people get wrong often. Donkey Vote actually refers to the act of voting in the order the candidates appear on the ballot. Going to the booth and not voting either by not putting in a ballot or incorrectly filling it out counts as an informal vote. Informal votes in Australia account for around 5%, it fluctuates a bit depending on how content people are with the two major parties.

The single best aspect of compulsory voting for me is the actual process of voting. In America every Presidential election you hear stories about how people had to wait in lines for several hours and in cases had to wait for so long the booths closed before they could vote. In Australia taking 15 minutes to vote is a long time. With compulsory voting the system has to be efficient, if it wasn't then people would not accept it.

This is just me, but personally I would prefer to have to vote once every 3 years for my Federal Government and once every 4 years for my State and in each case have it take 10-20 minutes then get a choice to vote and have it take anywhere from 10 minutes to 8 hours.

pyrate:

CM156:

reonhato:
in australia 97% of people vote at the federal election, in america its less than 60%.

That's because you're forced to, by law, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeppers

So if it's only 97%, does that mean that every election, around 3% breaks the law? EDIT: That isn't meant to be confrontational. I'm asking if there are exemptions to get out of voting and if that accounts for the 3%

Do you know the punishment for not voting without a valid reason...its a $20 fine, thats it.

The term "compulsory voting" is actually misleading as well as it is not compulsory to vote, you just have to turn up to a voting booth on election day.

Again, it's that whole "Right vs Obligation" issue. But Australia has a different set of Common Law, which I haven't studied. So I can't really comment on that issue.

CM156:

pyrate:

CM156:

That's because you're forced to, by law, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeppers

So if it's only 97%, does that mean that every election, around 3% breaks the law? EDIT: That isn't meant to be confrontational. I'm asking if there are exemptions to get out of voting and if that accounts for the 3%

Do you know the punishment for not voting without a valid reason...its a $20 fine, thats it.

The term "compulsory voting" is actually misleading as well as it is not compulsory to vote, you just have to turn up to a voting booth on election day.

Again, it's that whole "Right vs Obligation" issue. But Australia has a different set of Common Law, which I haven't studied. So I can't really comment on that issue.

Honestly, I think that it should be a legal obligation to vote. Even if your vote is cast for 'nobody' or 'abstain'. You'd still have your 'right' to not vote, but it makes it much, much harder for a employer to disenfranchise you by forcing you to work in a way that precludes you from voting, or much, much harder for a legislator to disenfranchise you by setting up giant hurdles in your way to voting.

If Wal-Mart forces their employees to all work shifts during election day to keep them from voting on local policy, as it is now, people aren't likely to raise much of a fuss. Make it the rule rather than the exception they have to vote, and this sort of thing is much less likely to happen as people will actually fight back when it does.

If Politician McMann tries to put a 100 dollar toll in the way of your voting, and you know that not voting (even if to put in an 'abstain' vote) means that you're going to suffer the legal consequences of a misdemeanor, they'll be much less likely to tolerate practices that disenfranchise themselves.

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!

Yes the Escapist is rather Progressive, which is why so many oppose you. Progressive reforms have generally taken the form of expanding voting rights and encouraging direct democracy. What you propose is not democratic but rather oligarchic, as it would reserve political power for a privileged social class.

I assure you your ideas are not new at all; in fact it is only relatively recently that they have faded from public policy. Historically, such laws have been most commonly used as weapons against poor and minority populations. Many of the infamous Jim Crow laws took such form.

I do not think it is possible to objectively judge a person's fitness to vote; most of your qualifications have less to do with personal character than luck. Being born into the right family in the right neighborhood will do much more for you than mere intelligence or a willingness to work hard. It takes absolutely no discipline at all to not commit crimes when you already have everything you need, and it is much easier to find a job when there are actually jobs to be found. The fact that it would also ruin a person's life for a single mistake also does not sit well with me.

Damien Granz:

CM156:

pyrate:

Do you know the punishment for not voting without a valid reason...its a $20 fine, thats it.

The term "compulsory voting" is actually misleading as well as it is not compulsory to vote, you just have to turn up to a voting booth on election day.

Again, it's that whole "Right vs Obligation" issue. But Australia has a different set of Common Law, which I haven't studied. So I can't really comment on that issue.

Honestly, I think that it should be a legal obligation to vote. Even if your vote is cast for 'nobody' or 'abstain'. You'd still have your 'right' to not vote, but it makes it much, much harder for a employer to disenfranchise you by forcing you to work in a way that precludes you from voting, or much, much harder for a legislator to disenfranchise you by setting up giant hurdles in your way to voting.

If Wal-Mart forces their employees to all work shifts during election day to keep them from voting on local policy, as it is now, people aren't likely to raise much of a fuss. Make it the rule rather than the exception they have to vote, and this sort of thing is much less likely to happen as people will actually fight back when it does.

If Politician McMann tries to put a 100 dollar toll in the way of your voting, and you know that not voting (even if to put in an 'abstain' vote) means that you're going to suffer the legal consequences of a misdemeanor, they'll be much less likely to tolerate practices that disenfranchise themselves.

I wasn't saying whether it was good or bad, only that I doubt it would stand in the states. Is it a right, like, say, the Second Amendment, or an obligation, like Jury Duty? As the case law in the states now shows, it's the former, which I agree with.

And honestly, I doubt the states would be so gung-ho about setting up a system that's only a single Supreme Court lawsuit away from going down the tubes.

Again, not saying that it's good or bad.

Mrhappyface 2:

dmase:

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.

Serious misdemeanors! I'm not talking about speeding and graffiti because that would be retarded. I'm talking about serious vandalism such as arson and destruction of property,malicous assault and battery, and illegal drug use.

Why do you avoid that question? Maybe it's because you don't want to say I want illegal immigrants and children of illegal immigrants to be shipped over boarders. Or that you want welfare to disappear. Or that you want to make sure the status quo is maintained where the successful people will continue to be successful and fuck everyone else. Basically your motivated politically to destroy the democratic party's base am I right? If not then please answer my question.

Serious misdemeanors? Please, smoking bud, getting into a car accident, and getting into a bar fight makes it ok to take away someone's right to vote.

Personally I like how your defending one of your suggestions that needs less defending. People are far more willing to condemn someone for a crime then not having a high school education, yet your going to defend taking away voting right for "serious" misdemeanors.

Not G. Ivingname:
...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?

I don't even think the tax issue is right. You can have a person who has been disabled since childhood, who has never paid taxes, but should also have a voice as well. It is bad enough someone can be born without legs, then to try and say they should have no say in those who make decisions for them is just outright absurd. All of it is absurd. Every citizen should have the right to have say in who represents them.

Lil devils x:

Not G. Ivingname:
...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?

I don't even think the tax issue is right. You can have a person who has been disabled since childhood, who has never paid taxes, but should also have a voice as well. It is bad enough someone can be born without legs, then to try and say they should have no say in those who make decisions for them is just outright absurd. All of it is absurd. Every citizen should have the right to have say in who represents them.

Not to mention that it's basically a violation of the 24th Amendment. Which is a rather important, don't you think?

Lil devils x:

Not G. Ivingname:
...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?

I don't even think the tax issue is right. You can have a person who has been disabled since childhood, who has never paid taxes, but should also have a voice as well. It is bad enough someone can be born without legs, then to try and say they should have no say in those who make decisions for them is just outright absurd. All of it is absurd. Every citizen should have the right to have say in who represents them.

True, and would also preclude anybody going to college on a college fund or a loan and that don't have the TIME for jobs. Or those people who were wrongly sent to jail, and didn't pay taxes while they were wrongly incarcerated.

Edit: Tax evasion already is a felony, so that point is a bit redundant anyway.

Wouldn't this also preclude anyone who is temporarily unemployed during an election season? We're hovering around ten percent unemployment or more in this country. This idea would completely silence their voice.

CM156:

I wasn't saying whether it was good or bad, only that I doubt it would stand in the states. Is it a right, like, say, the Second Amendment, or an obligation, like Jury Duty? As the case law in the states now shows, it's the former, which I agree with.

And honestly, I doubt the states would be so gung-ho about setting up a system that's only a single Supreme Court lawsuit away from going down the tubes.

Again, not saying that it's good or bad.

The true crux of the argument should and always should had been whether or not it's a good or bad law, not whether or not it's a 'right' or not. Rights don't exist. Rights is legalese and politese for laws that somebody somewhere is very personally convinced should exist (or not exist, as the case may be). It's a tinted glasses people can wear to show how enlightened their current age is when looking back through history. So they can pretend their own current values are some sort of universal axiomatic physical law that only they were smart enough to see.

"Lol, look how backwards they were, they didn't even know that free press was a right".

So telling me something can or can't be voted on because it's not known if it's a 'right' or not is exactly the same as telling me something can or can't be voted on because it hasn't been voted on yet.

If you believe that the law would be a bad idea (and feel free to), and you believe it so much that you'd be willing to instantly dismiss it, fine. But don't act like you can't even discuss the merits of the law because it's a universal metaphysical 'right'.

Saying "I don't know if this is a good or bad idea, but we can't discuss it and it'll never be because magical pixies" is a bit silly. It means you either don't have a real opinion on the matter, or you're trying to pull politese to squash a debate to keep a status quo that's in your favor.

Again, feel free to disagree with the proposed idea, but do so on the merits of the actual idea.

Damien Granz:
Rights don't exist

Annnnnnnd you lost me. Sorry.

The point I was trying to make is that the 24th Amendment says that voting is a "Right", not something you're obliged to do. Same with the 19th Amendment. I'm a student of constitutional law. I'm trying to make a legal argument. You're trying to make an Ethical argument. We're arguing past one another.

Yes, only the fortunate should be given a voice. The democracy we had before the 1920s was much more efficient and fair than the one we have today.

No, allowing everyone and getting everyone to vote isn't necessarily better for democracy. Qualifications are necessary for quality control. Guess why the founding fathers instituted the Electoral College. If we want to get any closer to direct democracy instead of a representative republic, we have to raise voting standards. Uneducated people are swayed too easily by false promises and catchy slogans.

Istvan:
Yes, only the fortunate should be given a voice. The democracy we had before the 1920s was much more efficient and fair than the one we have today.

No, only the qualified. You don't need to be lucky to graduate high school, get a job, and not commit crimes.

Mrhappyface 2:
No, allowing everyone and getting everyone to vote isn't necessarily better for democracy. Qualifications are necessary for quality control. Guess why the founding fathers instituted the Electoral College. If we want to get any closer to direct democracy instead of a representative republic, we have to raise voting standards. Uneducated people are swayed too easily by false promises and catchy slogans.

You do realize that when you restrict the right to vote, you don't have democracy anymore, right? Maybe you should look up what the word actually means.

Mrhappyface 2:

Istvan:
Yes, only the fortunate should be given a voice. The democracy we had before the 1920s was much more efficient and fair than the one we have today.

No, only the qualified. You don't need to be lucky to graduate high school, get a job, and not commit crimes.

And what about people who were homeschooled? How do they fit into your master plan?

Also, you are aware that denying people the vote based on money is so unconstitutional, it's funny? Like, go to any con-law class and propose your idea. After the laughing stops, tell them you're for serious.

CM156:

Mrhappyface 2:

Istvan:
Yes, only the fortunate should be given a voice. The democracy we had before the 1920s was much more efficient and fair than the one we have today.

No, only the qualified. You don't need to be lucky to graduate high school, get a job, and not commit crimes.

And what about people who were homeschooled? How do they fit into your master plan?

Also, you are aware that denying people the vote based on money is so unconstitutional, it's funny? Like, go to any con-law class and propose your idea. After the laughing stops, tell them you're for serious.

I said high school diploma or equivalent. I never said I was going to deny people by money, just by employment.

Vegosiux:

Mrhappyface 2:
No, allowing everyone and getting everyone to vote isn't necessarily better for democracy. Qualifications are necessary for quality control. Guess why the founding fathers instituted the Electoral College. If we want to get any closer to direct democracy instead of a representative republic, we have to raise voting standards. Uneducated people are swayed too easily by false promises and catchy slogans.

You do realize that when you restrict the right to vote, you don't have democracy anymore, right? Maybe you should look up what the word actually means.

I want a democracy, not a republic. But a democracy implies that everyone has a relatively good idea of what they're standing for and that they are well informed. A democracy where only half is knows WTF is going on and the other half only saw a 15 second commercial on TV isn't necessarily a democracy.

Mrhappyface 2:

CM156:

Mrhappyface 2:

No, only the qualified. You don't need to be lucky to graduate high school, get a job, and not commit crimes.

And what about people who were homeschooled? How do they fit into your master plan?

Also, you are aware that denying people the vote based on money is so unconstitutional, it's funny? Like, go to any con-law class and propose your idea. After the laughing stops, tell them you're for serious.

I said high school diploma or equivalent. I never said I was going to deny people by money, just by employment.

Vegosiux:

Mrhappyface 2:
No, allowing everyone and getting everyone to vote isn't necessarily better for democracy. Qualifications are necessary for quality control. Guess why the founding fathers instituted the Electoral College. If we want to get any closer to direct democracy instead of a representative republic, we have to raise voting standards. Uneducated people are swayed too easily by false promises and catchy slogans.

You do realize that when you restrict the right to vote, you don't have democracy anymore, right? Maybe you should look up what the word actually means.

I want a democracy, not a republic. But a democracy implies that everyone has a relatively good idea of what they're standing for and that they are well informed. A democracy where only half is knows WTF is going on and the other half only saw a 15 second commercial on TV isn't necessarily a democracy.

I thought they had to be taxpayers. And it's still a violation of the 24th Amendment. Again, what you're saying is laughable by con-law standards.

I think it should be a serious concern to all Americans that the people who most loudly call for us to go to war in other countries to "spread democracy", and the people who call for fewer Americans to be allowed to vote, all tend to come from the same segment of the political spectrum. And when democracies in other countries don't vote the way these conservatives think they should (example, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), this segment is the first to wring their hands and look for justifications to interfere. For as much as conservatives love to talk about freedom, it's downright disturbing how willing they are to throw it aside (well, throw aside other people's freedoms aside, never their own) when it suits their purposes.

EDIT: This reminds me of another conservative paradox. When something that a conservative disapproves of (for example, someone says something deemed unpatriotic or critical of US military policy) is justified with US's freedom of speech, I often hear the argument that, "Well, the military fought to give you your right to free speech so you should shut up!" In other words, because you have the freedom, you must not use it if it's ideas we disapprove of.

CM156:

Mrhappyface 2:

CM156:

And what about people who were homeschooled? How do they fit into your master plan?

Also, you are aware that denying people the vote based on money is so unconstitutional, it's funny? Like, go to any con-law class and propose your idea. After the laughing stops, tell them you're for serious.

I said high school diploma or equivalent. I never said I was going to deny people by money, just by employment.

Vegosiux:

You do realize that when you restrict the right to vote, you don't have democracy anymore, right? Maybe you should look up what the word actually means.

I want a democracy, not a republic. But a democracy implies that everyone has a relatively good idea of what they're standing for and that they are well informed. A democracy where only half is knows WTF is going on and the other half only saw a 15 second commercial on TV isn't necessarily a democracy.

I thought they had to be taxpayers. And it's still a violation of the 24th Amendment. Again, what you're saying is laughable by con-law standards.

You have to pay taxes if you're employed by any legitimate means. Amendments can also be repealed.

Mrhappyface 2:

CM156:

Mrhappyface 2:

I said high school diploma or equivalent. I never said I was going to deny people by money, just by employment.
I want a democracy, not a republic. But a democracy implies that everyone has a relatively good idea of what they're standing for and that they are well informed. A democracy where only half is knows WTF is going on and the other half only saw a 15 second commercial on TV isn't necessarily a democracy.

I thought they had to be taxpayers. And it's still a violation of the 24th Amendment. Again, what you're saying is laughable by con-law standards.

You have to pay taxes if you're employed by any legitimate means. Amendments can also be repealed.

Look at the "Narrowly Tailored" test and run your little idea through. It gets absolutely slaughtered. Getting fewer people to vote is not a legitimate government interest.

Mrhappyface 2:

I want a democracy, not a republic. But a democracy implies that everyone has a relatively good idea of what they're standing for and that they are well informed. A democracy where only half is knows WTF is going on and the other half only saw a 15 second commercial on TV isn't necessarily a democracy.

No, democracy has no requirement to be involved and informed, it merely requires that everyone has the right to voice their political opinion, no matter where it stems from.

If we're going to impose arbitrary restrictions, there are plenty more I could come up with, with a justification just as "solid" as yours, and I doubt you'd like those. Such as, religious background, having a bank account in a tax oasis instead of in the "home" country, not being tall enough to ride this, having a completely clean traffic record, not being a pretentious douche...

...I could come up with a "justification" for any of those, but in the end they'd still be nothing but arbitrary restrictions for my own convenience.

Now to make this perfectly clear, when I see something retarded, I often find myself going "Who the hell gave THAT guy the right to vote?" And yes, I firmly believe that everyone should be making an informed decision when casting their votes - but again, what does employment, education or even criminal record have to do with whether your decision is informed or not?

However, between 1) having people voting on the basis of a commercial, of what their uncles told them or of who looks the most presentable in evening-wear, and 2) denying the right to vote to some people because of my completely arbitrarily made up "rules", well, I'll still say 1) is a better option.

You know, if you deny people the right to vote and then the government screws those people over (which it will, since they can't stop it from getting re-elected), they just got a valid cause for sedition, because that's the only way they can unscrew themselves. If, however, they voted, and don't like what the government is doing, they have no such valid reason - after all, it's the government they, too, voted in.

"Of the people" is the phrase here I believe, not "of a particular subset of the people"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked