US Voting Qualifications Thread

[The Conservative]

Anyone with a passing familiarity with the classical civilization should hold deep reservations regarding the idea of universal enfranchisement.

That's what surprises me here -- we are all here because of dan carlin, we all supposedly know some history and are familiar with history of political thought.

Here is the problem: it sounds and feels good to extend the vote to everyone, so we go with it, it is part of our indoctrination, our national myth.

But one reason our political discourse is so pitiful is because THAT IS WHERE THE SWING-ABLE VOTER IS.

If you want to lower the discourse and collective problem-solving ability to the lowest possible level, extend the vote to everyone.

The swingable voter is normally the politically uneducated one, which if we go by today's rules is over 50% of the voting population.

[Speaker to Animals]

I'm ready for the difference.

Bring it on.

Gibs muh difference.

Vive la Différence!

You're just jaded because only about 3% of the electorate buys into libertarianism and, of those, probably 80-90% are one of aspies, drug abusers, sexual degenerates, or some pathetic combination of all three.

[Fife]

Okie dokie. At least its good to know who the one jaded guy is around here.

[Speaker to Animals]

You got that right!

We are all jaded up in here!

[apeman]

Okie dokie. At least its good to know who the one jaded guy is around here.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

That's pretty much what is happening, dude.

Then actually creating different classes of citizens by disenfranchising portions of them isn't likely to change much.

Do you have any reason to believe that universal vote is a good thing in a large country/empire?

Any reason?

Would any historical thinker even entertain the idea as wise?

There is a 'good reason' not to have different classes of citizenship with different rights. Unfortunately, since it has never really been tried before, we have no idea what the consequences will be.

It is also far from clear to me why the qualities you suggest would result in more sensible voting practices, knowing many propertied parents who are neither especially wise or well informed. They can be assumed to try voting their interests, like anyone else; and if we are going to be very charitable to our countrymen we can imagine that, form time to time, they vote with a higher sense of cooperation and civic duty, like anyone else.

So there is the practical consideration of deciding who gets to choose which qualities and which failures are attached to which rights.

If I hunted down a quote from a generally respected thinker that seems to endorse a universal franchise, how likely is that to make a difference?

[Penner]

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?

Respect? Why should I respect something that would take my rights away? You have never met me and don't know what "skins" I have in the game. I am a working adult that lives in an apartment with no kids. Right there your proposal would take away my rights to vote because you have decided I don't meet you "skin in the game" definition.

[Speaker to Animals]

Single women, no children, never married, are generally the exception. For the most part, women are a tax burden on society -- which is not a bad thing by the way. I am just saying, if we are going by the "net tax payer" instead of receiver metric, then most women are not going to be eligible to vote at some point in their lives.

[Penner]

Single women, no children, never married, are generally the exception. For the most part, women are a tax burden on society -- which is not a bad thing by the way. I am just saying, if we are going by the "net tax payer" instead of receiver metric, then most women are not going to be eligible to vote at some point in their lives.

So the fact that I am a:

- Adult

- Natural born citizen.

- have a job.

- File and pay my taxes

- Is a law abiding citizen

Isn't enough and you think that I will just throw my rights away for what? So, you guys can have a narrower voter body in this country?

[Speaker to Animals]

Single women, no children, never married, are generally the exception. For the most part, women are a tax burden on society -- which is not a bad thing by the way. I am just saying, if we are going by the "net tax payer" instead of receiver metric, then most women are not going to be eligible to vote at some point in their lives.

So the fact that I am a:

- Adult

- Natural born citizen.

- have a job.

- File and pay my taxes

- Is a law abiding citizen

Isn't enough and you think that I will just throw my rights away for what? So, you guys can have a narrower voter body in this country?

Don't get mad at me. It wasn't my idea. I was just taking it to the natural conclusion. You might very well retain enfranchisement in that scenario and I would lose it. But don't pretend like the majority of women aren't net receivers of government funds. That's just a fact. In the case of women who become stay-at-home mothers or part-time workers it's totally understandable. That's noble.

Personally, I'd rather limit the federal government to its original intent and then limit enfranchisement in it to veterans. The only place where this land ownership/tax paying status really makes a difference is at the state and local level.

Add a few more details to your bullet points and you might have a good bio.