US Voting Qualifications Thread

[apeman]

There is no historical reason to think democracy will endure, is there?

The biggest problem is endless gibs-based pandering and voters with absolutely no stake in the future. It allows you to look at the new Medicare-for-All bill -- which would double annual federal expenditures at a minimum -- and conclude "this is fine!"

So this is a thread to BS about proper qualifications to be permitted to vote in federal elections, obviously controversial, obviously no qualification can be perfect. But we need some skin in the game, or the incentives align very poorly. If you disagree, make your argument.

My thoughts so far:

-Must speak English to vote (I want you to want to integrate and be American)
-Must either own land or have a kid to vote (skin in the game and a stake in the community/future)
-Must have photo ID to vote (if you cannot procure a photo ID, with the minor expense and hassle it brings, then no vote)
-Cannot be on welfare for more than [period of time] in the last X years, or not vote. (this is about having a stake in your community/the future, not voting for gibs)
-Veterans get to vote regardless

Been toying with the idea of a basic civics test, but don't trust the govt with it.

I know that will ruffle feathers, in fact, I would only be able to vote for the last 16 months of my life, in any case, I cannot think of any good reason why I should have been allowed to vote before then. I bet the "land or kids" qualification will be reviled.

[TheReal_ND]

Boy or girl?

[apeman]

At least someone responded.

There is a colorable argument that women are more compassionate/susceptible to muh feelz, and that they thus vote for "bad" policies, but someone would have to make that argument first, not my wheelhouse

[Speaker to Animals]

There is no historical reason to think democracy will endure, is there?

Not really, if we don't nuke ourselves back to barbarism, I suspect the next system will be some kind of elective feudalism.

Nobody wants to admit it, but feudalism seems to be the natural human state that we always fall back to when shit hits the fan. It also tends to last longest.


If we are going to do a kind of democracy at all, I would limit enfranchisement to veterans and maybe those who own substantial property. Democracy only really works when all the voters are stakeholders who actually have to pay for what they vote for, in blood and coin.

[Ex-California]

There is no historical reason to think democracy will endure, is there?

The biggest problem is endless gibs-based pandering and voters with absolutely no stake in the future. It allows you to look at the new Medicare-for-All bill -- which would double annual federal expenditures at a minimum -- and conclude "this is fine!"

So this is a thread to BS about proper qualifications to be permitted to vote in federal elections, obviously controversial, obviously no qualification can be perfect. But we need some skin in the game, or the incentives align very poorly. If you disagree, make your argument.

My thoughts so far:

-Must speak English to vote (I want you to want to integrate and be American)
-Must either own land or have a kid to vote (skin in the game and a stake in the community/future)
-Must have photo ID to vote (if you cannot procure a photo ID, with the minor expense and hassle it brings, then no vote)
-Cannot be on welfare for more than [period of time] in the last X years, or not vote. (this is about having a stake in your community/the future, not voting for gibs)
-Veterans get to vote regardless

Been toying with the idea of a basic civics test, but don't trust the govt with it.

I know that will ruffle feathers, in fact, I would only be able to vote for the last 16 months of my life, in any case, I cannot think of any good reason why I should have been allowed to vote before then. I bet the "land or kids" qualification will be reviled.

You were paying beaucoup taxes for the time before the last 16 months of your life and for that reason you should be able to vote.

While I like the land or kid qualification, I think this could be simplified by making it a simple matter of employment and payroll taxes. The voter simply needs to have paid a set amount into the system over a past period of time. This would solve your land, child, and welfare issue.

I agree with English, no more multilingual ballots
I agree with the veteran thing, obviously

Why not just have a national ID at this point anyway? It feels wrong, but people need an ID for basically everything

[Ex-California]

There is no historical reason to think democracy will endure, is there?

Not really, if we don't nuke ourselves back to barbarism, I suspect the next system will be some kind of elective feudalism.

Nobody wants to admit it, but feudalism seems to be the natural human state that we always fall back to when shit hits the fan. It also tends to last longest.


If we are going to do a kind of democracy at all, I would limit enfranchisement to veterans and maybe those who own substantial property.

So a tiny amount of people get to decide the huge percentage of earnings confiscated by the government every two weeks for the rest of the people?

Like I've said in these threads before, any time you have very limited enfranchisement, conditions are ripe for rivers of blood in the streets

[Fife]

I'll make a trade:

Put the state in the box it should properly be in, and I'll grant the franchise to anybody who wants it. Vote early, vote often.

:goteam: :drunk:

[apeman]

You were paying beaucoup taxes for the time before the last 16 months of your life and for that reason you should be able to vote

For a few years, yeah, but mostly I was a student, or living in Tahoe with multiple roommates smoking bales of weed and would have probably voted for gibs if it came around because the man was holding me down.

While I like the land or kid qualification, I think this could be simplified by making it a simple matter of employment and payroll taxes. The voter simply needs to have paid a set amount into the system over a past period of time. This would solve your land, child, and welfare issue.

Maybe that's better, but I want the voter to be invested in the future not just the present and past.

[Speaker to Animals]

There is no historical reason to think democracy will endure, is there?

Not really, if we don't nuke ourselves back to barbarism, I suspect the next system will be some kind of elective feudalism.

Nobody wants to admit it, but feudalism seems to be the natural human state that we always fall back to when shit hits the fan. It also tends to last longest.


If we are going to do a kind of democracy at all, I would limit enfranchisement to veterans and maybe those who own substantial property.

So a tiny amount of people get to decide the huge percentage of earnings confiscated by the government every two weeks for the rest of the people?

Like I've said in these threads before, any time you have very limited enfranchisement, conditions are ripe for rivers of blood in the streets

Yep. It's more accurately stated that officials are held responsible and accountable for what goes in their domain, the people appointed beneath them, and they are removed from power when they fail to do so.

It's not perfect, but as long as we are looking at history, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the obvious fact that various forms of feudalism were the most stable and long-lasting governments in human history.

[pineapplemike]

I don't have a child or own land, but I do pay taxes and feel that buys me a ticket to vote. I might however be willing to surrender my voting rights in favor of lower taxes.