US Voting Qualifications Thread

[SuburbanFarmer]

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.

Well, it would simplify things, at least. No more illusory representation for the plebs. Not a great long-term idea, but the paperwork is lightened.

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"

That voting behavior is usually a hallmark of the rich and landed.

[Okeefenokee]

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.

[Penner]

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.

I would say that limiting the number of voters is useless (and very pointless) means to better government Obviously, this is solely about limiting the number of people that would disagree with you, on politics. And may you lose your vote as well.

[Okeefenokee]

><><><>
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?

Grumps doesn't know his Roman Republic history.

Tribunes (not just of the Plebians) were Magistrates just like the Consuls were Magistrates. Magistrates were elected by the assemblies, and the assemblies were made up of an assortment of collections of Tribes, which were made up of an even larger group of Citizens.

Every level on that pyramid had certain qualifications. The Roman Republic finally ended after a long trend of eliminating those qualifications bit by bit, until it was a suicidal system of mob rule and populism. At which point everyone agreed that it was better to have an Emperor than to deal with the shit-show they were living under.

That's what universal franchise on everything for everyone leads to. It was fun.

[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.

I would say that limiting the number of voters is useless (and very pointless) means to better government Obviously, this is solely about limiting the number of people that would disagree with you, on politics. And may you lose your vote as well.

This is the least charitable possible interpretation. I have discussed incentives and skin in the game, and you come back with this?

Is there any reason I should respect anything you have to say?

[The Conservative]

We tried to limit voting before, remember? (Oh yeah history isn't one of those things people like to remember)

It allowed one group or party power, it is how the KKK grew in the south in such a way that it took the interaction of the government and federal courts to counter decades of bad practices.

If you want to go back to the part of the 40's and 50's that people don't want, then sure, I have no problem with that, as long as you make it so that politically educated people are the ones that are allowed to vote. (And I don't mean politically educated as in biased, I mean history and facts not based off of either party.)

But we all know that's not going to happen, what we would require would a better education system, where we teach people instead of giving them the tools to just pass a test.

I don't know about anyone else here, but an educated base is the most dangerous thing for a corrupt government.

[apeman]

What are you trying to say TC?

You want voter qualifications, or you want universal vote?

[The Conservative]

What are you trying to say TC?

You want voter qualifications, or you want universal vote?

That depends, do you think we should allow education to be taught instead of how to pass a test?

[apeman]

Tiresome.

If you proposal is predicated on overhauling the educational system to your liking, and waiting for those kids to grow up and become voters, you have no plan.

[The Conservative]

Tiresome.

If you proposal is predicated on overhauling the educational system to your liking, and waiting for those kids to grow up and become voters, you have no plan.

I asked a valid question, and here is the thing... I went to a private school for children with Dyslexia, we were taught Math, Science, English, History (US and World) Before we graduated we had a test that dictated if we should be allowed to graduate. It was the precursor of the "test all kids take" now... except it has been bastardized.

There are too many people out there attempting to say that our educational system is fine, but when they are not taught the same things we were going through school, even as a basic foundation (like how to think for yourself.) there is an issue and a large one at that.

When we have more kids today that know more about what's going on with GoT than the world around them, and how we got there... that's an issue. There is a ton of issues that we need to resolve before we can actually say we have an informed populous. For right now, the majority of Americans aren't informed. If anything the majority of Americans shouldn't vote because they are only taking in what the TV tells them... and they don't research and think for themselves.

So for me, I would rather see an old-school education system back into place, where students are held back because they failed a class than what we have today, where everyone gets a trophy for attempting. Hell, who here remembers the Presidental Academic-Fitness Award? Today they have broken into two awards because people can't be smart and fit...

So call me skeptical if I believe that our educational system if done correctly would mean a smarter voting populous if done correctly.