US Voting Qualifications Thread

[Ex-California]

You guys have 100% changed my views on this in the last couple months.

What was it?

I was one of the guys during the occupy period ranting about the 1%.

Things change.

Enfranchisement absolutism

I too was ranting about the 1% during the Occupy period.

[apeman]

. Why is it that landowners and/or parents so special enough to fuck over a good percentage of people for no other reason than having different circumstances in life than you?

Read the OP, then answer your question. You don't have to agree with me of course, but why ask questions that are addressed literally in the opening lines of the thread?

Before we mess with modifying qualifications for voting, we need to tighten up our voting control. Voter ID is the first step. The arguments against it are childish.

I agree, in the OP obtaining a photo ID is mandatory to vote.

Well, I am all for voting ID card BUT the government is going to have to issue and handout said cards to everyone who is eligible to vote.

My proposal is that you have to be comeptent enough and have a large enough stake in soceity that you are able to get your OWN ID card, on your own time, at your own (minimal) expense.

If the massive hurdle of getting a photo ID is too much, sorry, find a way to overcome and then you can vote.

It is a metal disease, literal intentional blindness, you buy the argument that the country is better off having someone who cannot obtain a photo ID voting on how to steer this ship.

People need to be paying into the system if they want to participate in the system

Skin the in game / proper incentizes = better outcomes

That simple formulation is the basic engineering of designing good systems for humans.

Bizarrely controversial.

><><><>

Has anyone here ever been convinced by a political ad?

No of course not.

So why do they keep running the same sort of garbage ads?

Because they work

Why do they work?

Because the sweet spot in targeting swing-able voters in a democracy is like 3 standard deviations of decision-making ability below the groups that you actually want making the decisions on how to steer the boat.

><><><>
Is there any historical great thinker who believed that extended the vote to every peasant with no stake in the outcome of the system was a good idea? I haven't heard of him if he exists -- all the examples I know of are great thinks explicitly stating that mob democracy is suicide.

Penner, GCF et al - Is there such a thinker? If not, does that affect your views?

[SuburbanFarmer]

><><><>
Is there any historical great thinker who believed that extended the vote to every peasant with no stake in the outcome of the system was a good idea? I haven't heard of him if he exists -- all the examples I know of are great thinks explicitly stating that mob democracy is suicide.

Penner, GCF et al - Is there such a thinker? If not, does that affect your views?

I don't think it's a good idea to enfranchise non-citizens. However, if you're a citizen, you should have a say in who rules you. That's kinda the bedrock of calling yourself a 'Democracy'. Romans did it too, with the Tribune of the Plebs - no property requirement, and at least some representation for the lowly nobodies. On the other hand, I don't think that voting matters much at all, and your millionth-of-an-opinion can quickly be discarded, using electoral math, voter suppression, manipulation, et al.

I'm with you on 'get your own ID', I just have concerns about another government-issued ID becoming the de facto "papers please" document to track your life.

[apeman]

><><><>
Is there any historical great thinker who believed that extended the vote to every peasant with no stake in the outcome of the system was a good idea? I haven't heard of him if he exists -- all the examples I know of are great thinks explicitly stating that mob democracy is suicide.

Penner, GCF et al - Is there such a thinker? If not, does that affect your views?

I don't think it's a good idea to enfranchise non-citizens. However, if you're a citizen, you should have a say in who rules you. That's kinda the bedrock of calling yourself a 'Democracy'. Romans did it too, with the Tribune of the Plebs - no property requirement, and at least some representation for the lowly nobodies. On the other hand, I don't think that voting matters much at all, and your millionth-of-an-opinion can quickly be discarded, using electoral math, voter suppression, manipulation, et al.

I'm with you on 'get your own ID', I just have concerns about another government-issued ID becoming the de facto "papers please" document to track your life.

Good post, but Tribune of Plebs was mostly the power to propose law (not exclusive) and to veto IIRC (I'm sure someone here knows better), that is perhaps a proper use of the the plebeian vote, much different from our system, no?

[Speaker to Animals]

Their process was sort of inverted. The people elected the minor officials but not really the legislators whereas we elect the legislators and an executive, but the executive appoints all the officials.

Initially, the House was essentially the "tribune" in the federal government. But we fucked up the whole system when we started elected senators.

This idea that we inherited a perfect system is laughable to me, especially considering the fact that we changed it so many times with amendments and even then we ignore the Constitution left and right all the time.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Their process was sort of inverted. The people elected the minor officials but not really the legislators whereas we elect the legislators and an executive, but the executive appoints all the officials.

Initially, the House was essentially the "tribune" in the federal government. But we fucked up the whole system when we started elected senators.

This idea that we inherited a perfect system is laughable to me, especially considering the fact that we changed it so many times with amendments and even then we ignore the Constitution left and right all the time.

Yet, the Second Amendment is clearly perfect, and immutable?


I'm not clear on what your issue is with elected Senators - you've mentioned it a few times now. Is it Congress in general, or just that side of the building? For my .02, some term limits would go a hell of a long way toward fixing things.

[SuburbanFarmer]

><><><>
Is there any historical great thinker who believed that extended the vote to every peasant with no stake in the outcome of the system was a good idea? I haven't heard of him if he exists -- all the examples I know of are great thinks explicitly stating that mob democracy is suicide.

Penner, GCF et al - Is there such a thinker? If not, does that affect your views?

I don't think it's a good idea to enfranchise non-citizens. However, if you're a citizen, you should have a say in who rules you. That's kinda the bedrock of calling yourself a 'Democracy'. Romans did it too, with the Tribune of the Plebs - no property requirement, and at least some representation for the lowly nobodies. On the other hand, I don't think that voting matters much at all, and your millionth-of-an-opinion can quickly be discarded, using electoral math, voter suppression, manipulation, et al.

I'm with you on 'get your own ID', I just have concerns about another government-issued ID becoming the de facto "papers please" document to track your life.

Good post, but Tribune of Plebs was mostly the power to propose law (not exclusive) and to veto IIRC (I'm sure someone here knows better), that is perhaps a proper use of the the plebeian vote, much different from our system, no?

Maybe good, maybe just a pressure relief valve for the masses. Definitely different.

I don't think anyone has representation right now anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. Congress just does whatever-the-fuck-they-want, and we watch.

[apeman]

I don't think anyone has representation right now anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. Congress just does whatever-the-fuck-they-want, and we watch.

I agree.

My proposals would make each vote count more.

Because a lot less votes would exist.

[Ex-California]

I don't think anyone has representation right now anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. Congress just does whatever-the-fuck-they-want, and we watch.

I agree too, but this is exacerbated by people only voting for the D or the R and by insisting on voting for incumbents because of "experience"

[Speaker to Animals]

Their process was sort of inverted. The people elected the minor officials but not really the legislators whereas we elect the legislators and an executive, but the executive appoints all the officials.

Initially, the House was essentially the "tribune" in the federal government. But we fucked up the whole system when we started elected senators.

This idea that we inherited a perfect system is laughable to me, especially considering the fact that we changed it so many times with amendments and even then we ignore the Constitution left and right all the time.

Yet, the Second Amendment is clearly perfect, and immutable?


I'm not clear on what your issue is with elected Senators - you've mentioned it a few times now. Is it Congress in general, or just that side of the building? For my .02, some term limits would go a hell of a long way toward fixing things.

The human right that it recognizes exists.