US Voting Qualifications Thread

[Speaker to Animals]

The primary issue historically has to do with what sovereignty means. Sovereignty is the right to make war. With that right also comes the obligation to do so when the time comes. A feudal aristocracy are all supposed to be warriors, and inasmuch as they become cowards, feudalism begins to fail. In ancient democracies and republics, the right to vote was positively correlated to the obligation to muster in times of war. Early United States was no different: though it was possible you were required to muster in to tthe militia while not being enfrachised, it was not generally possible for you to be enfrachised and yet get a free pass from the muster.

When more voters than not pay no direct costs for wars and have zero obligation to fight in them, you will tend to see decades-long protracted and pointless wars that people keep voting for.

The problem with freeriding in the tax system (votes for gibs) is a related one tgat can sort of be dealt with in a similar way: require voters to be net tax payers. But in so doing, you just lost the vast majority of women, and you even loss people who are not net tax payers through no fault of their own (i.e. the disabled). Nor does that really totally fox the problem, since most "gibs" dollars go to the wealthy, who do pay taxes, for various subsidies and contracts deals with the government.

[Ex-California]

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.

Yeah, that's about the gist of it for me. Start confiscating 5 or 10% of what I earn instead of 35-40% and warriors can vote in my interest all day long

[Okeefenokee]

I think if franchise was limited to groups such as veterans and property owners, you'd have to expect to see less of the negative stuff that affects those groups, like wars and taxes. I could be wrong.

When it's open to millions of people who want gibs with no responsibility, well, you see what you get.

[Speaker to Animals]

I think if franchise was limited to groups such as veterans and property owners, you'd have to expect to see less of the negative stuff that affects those groups, like wars and taxes. I could be wrong.

When it's open to millions of people who want gibs with no responsibility, well, you see what you get.

I think just handing it out to property owners might be a mistake at the federal level, though. I wouldn't mind seeing enfranchisement at the county level based on property ownership, since property owners are the people paying most of the taxes. At the state level, maybe base it on net tax payments. At the federal level, I would limit it to just veterans, but I also would limit the federal government to just dealing with wars, diplomacy, etc.

Enfranchisement should be based on who pays the costs of the political decisions. At the level of sovereignty, that cost is ALWAYS paid in blood sacrifice, and if you aren't willing to go fight in wars, then I am sorry, you don't really need to be making decisions regarding war for our nation. You are just a bourgeois to me -- a merchant class at best, peasant at worst.

But at the same time, I recognize at the state level, the dynamic sort of flips around, and it's the people paying most of the income taxes that pay the costs. A disabled veteran, for example, may have proven his right to vote at the federal level, but he's not out there paying the costs of state government and has nothing to lose voting for more gibs.

At the county level what tends to matter is home ownership since counties are funded mostly by property taxes.


Note how the typical urban democrat wouldn't be getting a vote anywhere in that system, and yet they are the primary problem with running all three levels of government into the fucking ground today.

[Penner]

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.

I hate to break it to you but once an upon a time we did have some form of tests in order to vote- in some places across America. Those laws are part of something, called Jim Crow Laws so the idea of having people "pass some kind of test" no matter how low the bar it, to vote is very much illegal in this country. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and also was finalized when some people tried to test it in court, the Supreme Court ruled (in 1970- Oregon vs. Mitchell) that any test (such as literacy test but the law does apply to any test in order to vote) is illegal in federal elections.

[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.

I hate to break it to you but once an upon a time we did have some form of tests in order to vote- in some places across America. Those laws are part of something, called Jim Crow Laws so the idea of having people "pass some kind of test" no matter how low the bar it, to vote is very much illegal in this country. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and also was finalized when some people tried to test it in court, the Supreme Court ruled (in 1970- Oregon vs. Mitchell) that any test (such as literacy test but the law does apply to any test in order to vote) is illegal in federal elections.

We realize that this is all illegal right now but this is a way of reforming our broken government. By disenfranchising those who don't contribute to the country in anyway besides living on redistributed confiscated earnings polices would be put in place that would hopefully counter the massive amount of waste in taxation and government.

[Speaker to Animals]

We are talking about amendments and Penner is quoting Supreme Court rulings.

Penner fails the poll test.

[GloryofGreece]

Any realistic chance of 3/4ths the states agreeing to this?

[Penner]

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.

I hate to break it to you but once an upon a time we did have some form of tests in order to vote- in some places across America. Those laws are part of something, called Jim Crow Laws so the idea of having people "pass some kind of test" no matter how low the bar it, to vote is very much illegal in this country. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and also was finalized when some people tried to test it in court, the Supreme Court ruled (in 1970- Oregon vs. Mitchell) that any test (such as literacy test but the law does apply to any test in order to vote) is illegal in federal elections.

We realize that this is all illegal right now but this is a way of reforming our broken government. By disenfranchising those who don't contribute to the country in anyway besides living on redistributed confiscated earnings polices would be put in place that would hopefully counter the massive amount of waste in taxation and government.

Why do childless and landless people get fucked over in this government reform fantasy?

[Speaker to Animals]

Any realistic chance of 3/4ths the states agreeing to this?

Before or after it all falls apart and we fight a three year civil war while the cities are burned down by the dindus?