Voting Rights

[Tiberius]

We the people 

[TakeYouToTasker]

31 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

Every American has the right to vote.

 

Every American (save minors and convicted felons) has the "right" to vote, but that certainly doesn't mean that those who are uneducated, uninformed, generally disinterested, or have no stake in the size and scope of government should be encouraged to inflict their stupidity/ignorance/apathy on the rest of us.

 

You didn't answer my question:  what's the merit of those types of individuals voting? 

 

 

Quote

Are you seriously saying there should be a qualification test?

 

 

It's important to draw distinctions between what is, and what I believe would be a better system.

 

The above (all Americans enjoying the franchise) is what currently exists, and I support the prosecution of anyone violating the law by disenfranchising others who have enjoy the privilege of voting under our laws.

 

I believe a better system would be an absolute meritocracy in which there was no birthright citizenship for anyone, and the franchise was a privilege which one has to earn. 

 

Citizenship would guarantee the right to vote, and no person would be denied the right to become a citizen. 

 

Citizenship would require military service (accommodations made for the physically disabled), or those whom have owned property or a business for more than 10 years and are net federal tax payers; both would then be required to pass a test on US civics.

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Explain the merits of votes being cast by individuals whom are uneducated, uninformed, generally disinterested, and in some cases who have no stake in the size or scope of government?

 

They vote Democrat.  Duh.

15 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

 

Which is absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

 

Read Thucydides.  

[Thurmal34]

29 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Every American (save minors and convicted felons) has the "right" to vote, but that certainly doesn't mean that those who are uneducated, uninformed, generally disinterested, or have no stake in the size and scope of government should be encouraged to inflict their stupidity/ignorance/apathy on the rest of us.

 

You didn't answer my question:  what's the merit of those types of individuals voting? 

 

 

 

 

It's important to draw distinctions between what is, and what I believe would be a better system.

 

The above (all Americans enjoying the franchise) is what currently exists, and I support the prosecution of anyone violating the law by disenfranchising others who have enjoy the privilege of voting under our laws.

 

I believe a better system would be an absolute meritocracy in which there was no birthright citizenship for anyone, and the franchise was a privilege which one has to earn. 

 

Citizenship would guarantee the right to vote, and no person would be denied the right to become a citizen. 

 

Citizenship would require military service (accommodations made for the physically disabled), or those whom have owned property or a business for more than 10 years and are net federal tax payers; both would then be required to pass a test on US civics.

 

 

I can dig most of that, but no dice on the owning property part. That means only those with means can vote. Sorry, that’s not America. 

 

Maybe if you don’t like it, leave? (tongue planted firmly in cheek).

 

Hey, there is always the mail order steak racket!

43 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

And you are absolutely wrong.

 

You certainly have a right to your opinion. I respect that. 

 

 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

I can dig most of that, but no dice on the owning property part. That means only those with means can vote. Sorry, that’s not America. 

 

No, it doesn't mean that only those with means can vote.  Military service is open to all, and even if you have property or a business you're still required to pass a civics test, be required to be a resident for 10 years, and still required to be a net federal tax payer.  No other requirements would be necessary (I'm open to arguments about age restrictions and criminals). 

 

Only those with a direct stake in the size, scope, and role of government should have a say in how it's run.

[Tiberius]

Can a person that "owns" property vote if they owe the bank the money for the property? How would that work? 

[3rdnlng]

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Can a person that "owns" property vote if they owe the bank the money for the property? How would that work? 

Don't worry about that, you'd never pass the civics test. You're assured of missing all of the Federal Reserve questions.

[BeginnersMind]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

So there's a minimum acceptable amount of tampering allowed before "the sanctity of the vote" is violated?

 

How much tampering is the limit?  Does that include Republican gerrymandering?

 

Yes. There are limits to what is tolerable. Just like there are limits to how much we are ok being inconvenienced in airport security. How safe medication is. How much pollution is acceptable. 

 

Vote tampering is a red meat red herring issue.

38 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Don't worry about that, you'd never pass the civics test. You're assured of missing all of the Federal Reserve questions.

 

As long as he answers that the Fed  is a Rothchild pawn of the Deep State, he’s sure to pass. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by BeginnersMind

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Yes. There are limits to what is tolerable. Just like there are limits to how much we are ok being inconvenienced in airport security. How safe medication is. How much pollution is acceptable. 

 

Vote tampering is a red meat red herring issue.

 

 

Yes...BUT, Democrats have invested so much into "the sanctity of the vote," that what do they consider that limit?  

 

Because it seems very fungible.  

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

Goalposts moved.

 

Try not to change the subject!

 

It's not moving the goalposts. It's using your own logic to show how partisan and shallow your beliefs on this matter truly are. You have nothing serious to offer on this topic but partisan blathering.

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Can a person that "owns" property vote if they owe the bank the money for the property? How would that work? 

Yes.  You register to vote and then vote at your local polling place come election day.

[TakeYouToTasker]

44 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Yes. There are limits to what is tolerable. Just like there are limits to how much we are ok being inconvenienced in airport security. How safe medication is. How much pollution is acceptable. 

 

Vote tampering is a red meat red herring issue.

 

Did you really just assert that there are acceptable levels of election fraud?

 

That's an incredibly stupid argument to make.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Did you really just assert that there are acceptable levels of election fraud?

 

That's an incredibly stupid argument to make.

 

He's not a real person. He's here to slide and get paid.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He's not a real person. He's here to slide and get paid.

 

I'm aware.

 

The response wasn't so much for him as it was to slap that argument in general.  Some other moron is bound to pick up that sword, so I wanted to preemptively slap it.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm aware.

 

The response wasn't so much for him as it was to slap that argument in general.  Some other moron is bound to pick up that sword, so I wanted to preemptively slap it.

 

True. True.  

[BeginnersMind]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Did you really just assert that there are acceptable levels of election fraud?

 

That's an incredibly stupid argument to make.

 

Oversimplification but there are acceptable limits of bad outcomes vs limits to what we do to prevent them. True in most contexts. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Glowing like a radioactive lighthouse. 

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Oversimplification but there are acceptable limits of bad outcomes vs limits to what we do to prevent them. True in most contexts. 

I guess I have to agree with you. It's pretty much like when a spook with a reporters cover got himself killed in a Saudi embassy in Turkey. In the big picture, as far as the Middle East goes with our allies and Iran, it doesn't mean jackshit. So, a few illegal votes vs 10's of millions don't mean all that much.

[TakeYouToTasker]

You're doubling down on it?

 

Incredibly stupid argument.  In a free society constructed on the foundation of natural rights philosophy, the right to self-determination is paramount.

 

There is no acceptable amount of rights violations.  Full stop.

[Tiberius]

On 11/23/2018 at 2:22 PM, Doc Brown said:

Yes.  You register to vote and then vote at your local polling place come election day.

But the bank really owns the property. 

 

And how about renting vs owning? If its smarter to rent, why should someone lose their right to vote? 

 

I'm just happy voting rights are expanding and Democrats are making voting access a priority of the party going forward. 

[Thurmal34]

On 11/23/2018 at 11:16 AM, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

No, it doesn't mean that only those with means can vote.  Military service is open to all, and even if you have property or a business you're still required to pass a civics test, be required to be a resident for 10 years, and still required to be a net federal tax payer.  No other requirements would be necessary (I'm open to arguments about age restrictions and criminals). 

 

Only those with a direct stake in the size, scope, and role of government should have a say in how it's run.

 

I mean I get what you are saying here and there is def validity, and I happen to be of the opinion that military service should be mandatory here in the US, but I also think that everyone should be automatically registered to vote at 18.