View Full Version : Question
BMT (RIP)
02-16-2010, 07:23
Stirring the pot with a big stick!!
Should landowner's and the military be the only one allowed to vote.
:eek:
:munchin
BMT
Dozer523
02-16-2010, 07:31
Nope, just Starship Troopers.
I don't think so.
I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.
Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.
"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.
Stirring the pot with a big stick!!
Should landowner's and the military be the only one allowed to vote.
:eek:
:munchin
BMT
I wish. IMO, If a person is not a contributing member of Society they should not be given a vote. Problem is............the Democrats would become extinct in politics:lifter
I don't think so.
I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.
Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.
"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.
x2
Team Sergeant
02-16-2010, 08:24
I don't think so.
I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.
Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.
"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.
I like the way you think.
Stirring the pot with a big stick!!
Should landowner's and the military be the only one allowed to vote. BMT
This has come up several time with the inlaws.
Most have homes and vacation condos/homes and want to be able to vote in any election where they own property.
Case in point: My wife's cuz owns a home in Sag Harbor, Long Island, NY. The family lived out there over several generations as farmers. Needless to say it is worth a bunch. Charley pays almost as much a yr in taxes,, as I pay mortgage.. He is pissed that every year his taxes go up and he can't do a dam thing about it. The local Democrats spend & spend, being elected by a small blue collar bunch of farmers. Yes there are farmers on Long Island,, lots of potatoes..
I concur,, if you pay taxes, you can vote...
Bordercop
02-16-2010, 09:15
I don't think so.
I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.
Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.
"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.
X3 and then some. If you don't pay taxes then you shouldn't have a say in what the government says or does!!!
craigepo
02-16-2010, 09:16
The effect of allowing only landowners to vote, when this county began, was to give political power only to those who had a vested interest in the betterment of the country. These folks would vote, it was hoped, with the best interests of the country(and not only for themselves) in mind.
Today, just about everybody gets to vote. Studying the nation's politics from beginning to now evidences that the effect has been to drag the country to the left. Some of this dragging was necessary; much was not. But it is understandable, as much of our voting populace votes with their own betterment, and not the country's, as their goal.
I do not think the "landowner" distinction would be feasible today. However, I think that general idea is germane and necessary.
I would think that, for the betterment of the country, for a person to have the right to vote, he/she should "have some skin in the game", i.e. should have something to lose. Folks who do not work, and subsist only by draining tax money away from others, have no skin in the game.
Pete's idea is not bad. However, this would prevent retirees from voting(many of whom should vote). Possibly a rule that, to vote, the person either: (a) was gainfully employed or, (b) has paid in a minimum lifetime amount to Social Security.
I'm sure ACORN is now calling in a fire mission on my position.
Dozer: I liked the Starship trooper statement. Most won't get it, they've only seen the movie.
ETA: Necessarily, with rights and privileges come duties and responsibilities.
I don't think so.
I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.
Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.
"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.
I agree in concept, but not in execution. There are plenty of young enlisted troops that fall into this category.
Utah Bob
02-16-2010, 10:16
Lemme think.
No.
I agree in concept, but not in execution. There are plenty of young enlisted troops that fall into this category.Young enlisted troops are in the military, are they not?
Yep, but some of them are also on food stamps and EIC.
Yep, but some of them are also on food stamps and EIC.True...but it was that way 20+ years ago when I was commanding a company...I think the point of the question is that troops, regardless of land ownership or tax paying status, make a contribution to the nation, whereas a career welfare recipient does not...
Yep, but some of them are also on food stamps and EIC.
The 2010 cut off for the EITC is $43,279 for a married couple filing jointly with three children.
So yes, there are some lower enlisted who would qualify.
A married E-2 with less than 2 years TIS would be getting $1,568.70 base pay per month, $323.87 for rations and $1,065 for quarters (Ft Bragg) for a yearly total of $35,490.84 - not counting flight, jump or other incentive pay. Throw in a few kids and yes some would qualify.
In my view the EITC is a crock of steaming crap.
Edited to add the 1 Oct 1974 rates for the same E-2 under 2 yrs TIS. $383.40 base pay, $110.70 QTS w/Dep and I didn't find the rations but think it was around $129ish(?). Jump pay at $55 was a big deal.
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2010, 12:29
I don't think so.
I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.
Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.
"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.
Everyone "pays" taxes.
Taxes on corporations/owners of capital are passed on to everyone else, rich and poor alike.
When the gov't borrows money and devalues the currency, everyone is taxed.
Those who don't own property which can appreciate are taxed the most in this case.
The problem isn't taxing, it's spending.
A new poll tax? :eek:
One might wanna read the 24th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States...and also review the history of the 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, and 26th Amendments.
So - based on the criteria being posited - what of:
A non-Working and non-property owning spouse?
Farmers who get various farm subsidies or may not own any of the property they farm?
College students over 18 but not employed or property owners?
Anybody who gets a tax credit for children?
Renters?
Not everyone in the military is a citizen - so non-citizens should vote but citizens should not.
usw.
I think there are major issues with the idea(s) of tying enfranchisement to property ownership, taxation, and military service.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
...I think there are major issues with the idea(s) being posited.......
I don't - get back with me in about 20 years.
greenberetTFS
02-16-2010, 13:22
True...but it was that way 20+ years ago when I was commanding a company...I think the point of the question is that troops, regardless of land ownership or tax paying status, make a contribution to the nation, whereas a career welfare recipient does not...
I believe the above is correct...... It was also true for me 40 years ago when I was a Staff Sgt. ........;)
If the American left could hire Odysseus the great tactician, I augur that this proposal would be the Trojan horse he'd build to defeat its supporters.
Just my $0.02.
robert2854
02-16-2010, 17:58
That sounds awful good, but just being an American is enough as long as you can pass a common sense test and not a sense test by Marx
Kill a Commie for Mommie
Peregrino
02-16-2010, 18:47
"The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome."
— Robert A. Heinlein
So YES - Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote and only veterans should be allowed to hold office. YMMV :munchin
maybe I could stir the pot a little more with this thought:
Perhaps with modern advances in intercommunication it is now time for a direct democracy rather than a representative.
Part of the thinking behind a representative democracy was that the general public is not educated enough and/or it was hard to communicate accross a nation. We now have a more educated populous than ever before (speaking strictly on the amount of schooling given, not necessarily indicitave of intelligence). Certainly, it is clear we have the communication technology.
Just a thought. ;):munchin
edit: Just throwing something into the pot, I don't think this could really work either especially without some sort of restrictions on who could vote.
Perhaps with modern advances in intercommunication it is now time for a direct democracy rather than a representative.I disagree.
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2010, 19:48
maybe I could stir the pot a little more with this thought:
Perhaps with modern advances in intercommunication it is now time for a direct democracy rather than a representative.
Strongly disagree.
Too much democracy is the problem.
Tyranny of the 51%.
This whole thread asks how we should allocate power from the citizenry to the federal gov't.
This supposes that the federal gov't should have the power.
Gov't isn't the solution, gov't is the problem.
A first step to fixing the problem would be a repeal of the 17th amendment.
The Reaper
02-16-2010, 19:59
I am with Heinlein.
Too many voters who have no concept of responsibility and who live for immediate gratification.
But that it just my .02. Not going to happen in this iteration of the Republic.
Maybe someone will have the balls to implement it next time around.
TR
A first step to fixing the problem would be a repeal of the 17th amendment.
Void the direct election of Senators? :confused:
Richard
Strongly disagree.
Too much democracy is the problem.
Tyranny of the 51%.
This whole thread asks how we should allocate power from the citizenry to the federal gov't.
This supposes that the federal gov't should have the power.
Gov't isn't the solution, gov't is the problem.
A first step to fixing the problem would be a repeal of the 17th amendment.
I definately agree with you about 51% causing problems. There is nothing that is stoping us from setting the majority level higher than that though.
As far as too much government. I think the idea of this style of democracy is what I thought most people wanted; a direct impacting role into the governing of ones own life. Under this view the "Federal" government would be the people themselves rather than the essentially independent entity we currently have. This might also mean that there are less new laws being formed and less goverment regulation because national votes could perhaps only be held on major issues. My thinking on that point because so many people must vote that then there would be less incentive to bring about laws and spending that perhaps are not really necessary.
I also concede that it would be very hard to get away from some oversight, so perhaps a blend is needed?
I think there is a name for that type but I can't remember it right now. :confused:
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2010, 20:05
Void the direct election of Senators? :confused:
Richard
Exactly.
The State governments lack sufficient influence.
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2010, 20:10
I am with Heinlein.
Too many voters who have no concept of responsibility and who live for immediate gratification.
But that it just my .02. Not going to happen in this iteration of the Republic.
Maybe someone will have the balls to implement it next time around.
TR
Unintended consequences, sir.
Great in concept, difficult in practice.
The president proposed a form of national service.
If suffrage required meeting what his "terms of service" might be, would we be happy with the outcome?
The president proposed a form of national service.Universal national service would be an expensive proposition...that's a lot of folks to feed, house, and keep out of trouble...
armymom1228
02-16-2010, 20:31
A first step to fixing the problem would be a repeal of the 17th amendment.
The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1911, the House of Representatives on May 13, 1912, and ratified by the states on April 8, 1913. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, transferring Senator selection from each state's legislature to popular election by the people of each state. It also provides a contingency provision enabling a state's governor, if so authorized by the state legislature, to appoint a Senator in the event of a Senate vacancy until either a special or regular election to elect a new Senator is held.
I will have to strongly disagree. To remove a Senator then one would have to go thru the Senate of one's state. I can so see any number of ways to abuse that system. The current method of removal is direct action via the ballot box. The latter is far faster and preferable rather than the former. Don't agree, lets wager the Nov elections.
As for removing MY right to vote one only has to look back in History to the Women's Suffragette movement...the name Alice Paul comes to mind. :D
That is a can of worms no one ever wants to open again. :munchin
In theory a lot of ideas proposed so far would work.
As a super-PC nation more would be done to define what a landowner and taxpayer "is" than actually enacting any legislation that would mean real action.
I agree that the book "Starship Troopers" from Heinlen (via TR) is the most sensible.
But again this becomes convoluted as to where do the rights begin and what gates must a person go through to earn his/her status as a citizen.
We'd end up eating our own heads just trying to get a handle and ward off the those that really don't deserve vs. those that have some real right.
Soldiers by majority represent what social classes? There is no way a polititcian would ever cede power to someone they perceive to be of a lesser person by virtue of upbrining.
You had to stir the pot didn't you! Tough one to really stand up and not be knocked down on.
Peregrino
02-16-2010, 21:10
As for removing MY right to vote one only has to look back in History to the Women's Suffragette movement...the name Alice Paul comes to mind. :D
That is a can of worms no one ever wants to open again. :munchin
I would respectfully contend that the rise of the "nanny state" is a direct result of women's suffrage. :munchin
craigepo
02-16-2010, 23:04
I guess that we aren't the first folks to discuss the issue of "universal suffrage". I'm attaching a link to some of James Madison's thoughts on the subject.
Having read Madison's thoughts, it seems that the Founding generation were quite worried about the Property owners' rights. I don't know if that was done with a view that the Property owners were a type of gentry, or that Property owners were the "producers" of the day.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s26.html
armymom1228
02-16-2010, 23:26
I guess that we aren't the first folks to discuss the issue of "universal suffrage". I'm attaching a link to some of James Madison's thoughts on the subject.
Having read Madison's thoughts, it seems that the Founding generation were quite worried about the Property owners' rights. I don't know if that was done with a view that the Property owners were a type of gentry, or that Property owners were the "producers" of the day.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s26.html
This pretty much says it all..
Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the Mass of Citizens should not be without a voice, in making the laws which they are to obey, & in chusing the Magistrates, who are to administer them, and if the only alternative be between an equal & universal right of suffrage for each branch of the Govt. and a confinement of the entire right to a part of the Citizens, it is better that those having the greater interest at stake namely that of property & persons both, should be deprived of half their share in the Govt.; than, that those having the lesser interest, that of personal rights only, should be deprived of the whole.
It would seem to be hypocritial to disenfranchise part of our society. When he hold ourselves and our government to be the be all and end of Democracy for all who live on these shores.
AM
I would respectfully contend that the rise of the "nanny state" is a direct result of women's suffrage. :munchin
Which one? :confused:
Nanny State - term used by politically conservative or libertarian groups (especially those that support the free market and capitalism) who object to excessive state action to protect people from the consequences of their actions by restricting citizen options.
Nanny State - term used by liberals and Libertarians to describe the state as being excessive in its protections of businesses and the business class - protections ostensibly made against the public good and the good of consumers.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
armymom1228
02-16-2010, 23:36
:munchin
Soldiers by majority represent what social classes?I strongly suspect that the desire to 'transform' the American armed services has played no small role in the Democratic Party's platforms in the last two presidential elections, the party's preferences for GWOT, and the 2010 QDR.
By 'transform,' I mean by changing the way America fights wars so that the 'elites' in the professions of arms are increasingly defined by expertise with technology rather than mastery over the art and science of warfare itself.
Coupled with the announced plans to revise significantly the armed services' policy on DADT, the dormant debate over women in combat roles, and other social issues, I suspect that the president wants to reshape fundamentally the factors that motivate men and women to volunteer for armed service.
This suspicion is one of the reasons why I think the question in the OP represents a Trojan horse.
RE Post #41 - Astounding - looks like we snagged another one. :eek: :eek:
BSMMIV - you certainly do not know how my wife thinks.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Void the direct election of Senators? :confused:
Richard
It is, IMHO, a fair point. Senators were intended to represent the interests of the states in the central government. By making them essentially more powerful representatives, part of the delicate system of checks and balances designed by the founders was disrupted. Without a specific voice for the states, centralization of power can proceed with less resistance.
RE Post #44 - perhaps a little history for background and perspective -
One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, was yet another.
The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being undermined by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill.
The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred in a state's legislature, other issues (e.g., campaign finances) were introduced.
The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people.
The Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).*
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
*http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html
alright4u
02-17-2010, 09:26
The effect of allowing only landowners to vote, when this county began, was to give political power only to those who had a vested interest in the betterment of the country. These folks would vote, it was hoped, with the best interests of the country(and not only for themselves) in mind.
Today, just about everybody gets to vote. Studying the nation's politics from beginning to now evidences that the effect has been to drag the country to the left. Some of this dragging was necessary; much was not. But it is understandable, as much of our voting populace votes with their own betterment, and not the country's, as their goal.
I do not think the "landowner" distinction would be feasible today. However, I think that general idea is germane and necessary.
I would think that, for the betterment of the country, for a person to have the right to vote, he/she should "have some skin in the game", i.e. should have something to lose. Folks who do not work, and subsist only by draining tax money away from others, have no skin in the game.
Pete's idea is not bad. However, this would prevent retirees from voting(many of whom should vote). Possibly a rule that, to vote, the person either: (a) was gainfully employed or, (b) has paid in a minimum lifetime amount to Social Security.
I'm sure ACORN is now calling in a fire mission on my position.
Dozer: I liked the Starship trooper statement. Most won't get it, they've only seen the movie.
ETA: Necessarily, with rights and privileges come duties and responsibilities.
I agree 100%. Those living on welfare, foodstamps, gov paid housing, free school lunches, etc. NO VOTE.
FDR told these jacklegs to -"Sit on their ass, throw down their shovels, smoke a camel, and;welcome to the promised land."
Now another FDR lover is CIC. Please learn that FDR was a damn fool who started Soc Sec, created the cold war, etc.
Dozer523
02-17-2010, 09:55
Dozer: I liked the Starship trooper statement. Most won't get it, they've only seen the movie.
It's still required reading for this board, right. (Robert A Heinlein) If you haven't read it. READ IT!
...and the growth of a three party system with the birth of the NSAAP - Nationalsozialistische Amerikanische Arbeiterpartei :eek:
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
greenberetTFS
02-17-2010, 11:57
I think there should be some form of an intelligence test on who the candidates are that running for office! :rolleyes:I recall a great many people who voted for Obama were asked if they liked his VP choice,Sara Palin,and almost every one said "yes" :eek: I rest my case on who should vote! :p
Big Teddy :munchin
craigepo
02-17-2010, 12:01
Richard sir
Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are nazis. Even Jefferson thought people could be disenfranchised if they refused to attend school.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/jefferson.html
As to Heinlein, his proposition, that of having to perform "service" to become a citizen, was not militaristic. His idea was that voting and employment as a public official was/were extremely important. Heinlein's idea was that, in order to be afforded such rights, a person should have to evidence his/her willingness to place the good of the country about his/her own good. Of course, more intelligent people than myself have read this in different ways.
armymom1228
02-17-2010, 13:18
It is, IMHO, a fair point. Senators were intended to represent the interests of the states in the central government. By making them essentially more powerful representatives, part of the delicate system of checks and balances designed by the founders was disrupted. Without a specific voice for the states, centralization of power can proceed with less resistance.
Disagree. The states have a voice, via legislation. Real ID is opposed by 14 states who opted out of the whole mess. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Missouri, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, New Hamshire and Maine have ALL passed legilslaiton prohibiting the implementation of Real ID. Others have legislation proposed or in the pipeline.
When the Feds wanted to force states to opt into the health care plan a number of states Attorney General's had a plan to sue the federal government over this issue.
The states, in this case, via legislation, have opted out of something the Fedral Government sought to impose, yet not provide monetary compensation for the nightmare in bureaucratic paperwork it would bring to the state. Florida is now going through this nightmare.
The 10th amendment reserves to the states and people any powers not delegated to the federal government.
Amendment 10 says that the state governments and the people of the United States retain any powers the Constitution does not specifically grant to the federal government or prohibit to the state governments, such as the power of the states to establish and manage public school systems.
MORE information here. (http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-rights)
More Supreme Court decisions with regards to the 10th Amendment. (http://law.jrank.org/pages/10730/Tenth-Amendment.html)
armymom1228
02-17-2010, 13:31
It's still required reading for this board, right. (Robert A Heinlein) If you haven't read it. READ IT!
Oh lord not another book to read???:confused::eek:
I am working my way through the entire SF Reading list that someone 'suggested' to me. I will just add it to the pile..:( At this rate I will still be reading throug the list on my deathbed.
AM
I think there should be some form of an intelligence test on who the candidates are that running for office! I recall a great many people who voted for Obama were asked if they liked his VP choice,Sara Palin,and almost every one said "yes" :eek: I rest my case on who should vote!
Big Teddy :munchin
Am in agreement 110% Big Teddy Sir!:lifter
As this question has been hinted at here over the past years, my thinking cap is always on when it comes to this subject...
(And my vote leans towards learning more about the ideas posted...;) )
Holly
Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are nazis.
Disagreement with me was not the point - that there should be levels of citizenship and enfranchisement based on concepts such as national service, wealth, and the like have been used before (the defunct NSDAP being one such group) is.
Richard
.......... - that there should be levels of citizenship and enfranchisement based on concepts such as national service, wealth, and the like have been used before (the defunct NSDAP being one such group) is. ...........
How big can the government worker unions (Local/state/Federal) get before it's Government Workers - and then everyone else?
More than one government union is flexing it's muscles.
I seem to recall some movie about a cute little plant. It loved to say "Feed Me". It kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Before too long "Feed Me" took on a whole new meaning.
Slantwire
02-17-2010, 15:38
levels of citizenship and enfranchisement based on concepts such as national service, wealth, and the like
Allow me to play devil's advocate to you for a minute, sir.
"Should everyone living in the US be equally enfranchised?"
"Should everyone born in the US be equally enfranchised?"
"Should everyone born to US citizens be equally enfranchised?"
If the answers aren't "yes" to all three questions, then there are levels of enfranchisement. Citizenship is obviously the highest level, but not the only one.
Legal permanent residents have pretty much all the rights and benefits of citizens, except for voting and jury duty. Males even have to register with Selective Service.
Legal non-permanent residents are another step down. (Work visas, student visas, etc.) Illegal residents are another tier entirely, of course.
I'm not sure about the status of convicted felons. (Should people like Brian Regan, Aldrich Ames, or Adam Pearlman / Adam Yahiye Gadahn be allowed to vote?)
The transition from LPR to citizen is predicated on time lived in the US, basic English proficiency, some knowledge of civics, and not having an excessive rap sheet. Plenty of people would fail to make the grade if they didn't happen to fit the second and third questions listed above. Should they be inherently more entitled because of who their parents were, or where they were born?
Besides, there's already a distinction based on age.
Big Teddy suggests that voters need to have some clue about the issues and candidates they seek to vote on - and I agree. Yesterday, I voted in the early voting period for the Texas primaries. The top slots were easy enough, since I knew something of the candidates and their positions. I did not know anything about the candidates for the school board, the Texas Railroad Commission, or one of the State District Court races. Fortunately, most of the races only had one candidate, so choosing was simple.
But here's the problem. I went ahead and voted for candidates I know nothing about - even though their policies may be important in a variety of ways. I suspect many others do the same thing. Such a selection process seems unlikely to produce good governance.
Richard brings up an issue with differing levels of enfranchisement. And yet, I cannot help wondering if there is some mechanism that produces better voting practice and outcomes. (No, I'm not sure exactly what "better" might mean).
Sarah Palin has been skewered for some of her answers. Suppose some fictional candidate ran...one who provided deep, well-informed, cogent answers. No notes, no teleprompters - rather, a clear and comprehensive knowledge of geopolitics, science, economics, and so forth. Let's suppose our fantasy candidate even uses language with power, and subtle (but appropriate) nuances of meaning. Could such a candidate get elected? I doubt it.
The most recent national campaign emphasized change. Even I could get up and promise hope and change. Of course, my idea of change might be relaxing at Camp David while the public hoped I would actually do something... :D
Perhaps if voting status was something that was difficult to achieve we would value it more. Perhaps there should be barriers that would require some effort to overcome. Maybe by making voting too easy and too universal, we have reduced it to a largely meaningless exercise that is used too lightly.
MOO, YMMV.
Question Richard: Who gets to decide: what a "contribution" is and who fufills the definition of "contributor" ?
You misread my response - my position is that such thinking - while dangerously tempting - is wholly incorrect and goes against the philosophical grain of the entire idea of America.
However...YMMV...and so it goes...
Legal permanent residents...
Are not citizens - and the age distinction (which has nothing to do with the gist of this thread's argument) is based upon our national social attitudes (supported by medical research) toward the appropriate age of legal majority which legally enables one to vote, get married without parental consent, sign contracts, etc.
RE Post #57 - enfranchisement - to give a franchise to; specif., to admit to citizenship, esp. to the right to vote.
Richard
Perhaps the focus is too much on getting the masses to be more responsible on their voting, when really the focus ought to be who can be elected.
craigepo
02-17-2010, 16:21
nmap
"Sarah Palin has been skewered for some of her answers. Suppose some fictional candidate ran...one who provided deep, well-informed, cogent answers. No notes, no teleprompters - rather, a clear and comprehensive knowledge of geopolitics, science, economics, and so forth. Let's suppose our fantasy candidate even uses language with power, and subtle (but appropriate) nuances of meaning. Could such a candidate get elected? I doubt it."
NMap:
I was reading Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America last night, and came upon this observation. I think the year was 1830
"...On my arrival in the United States I was surprised to find so much distinguished talent among the subjects and so little among the heads of the Government. It is a well-authenticated fact, that at the present day the most able men in the United States are very rarely placed at the head of affairs; and it must be acknowledged that such has been the result in proportion as democracy has outstepped all former limits. The race of American statesmen has evidently dwindled most remarkable in the course of the last fifty years..."
armymom1228
02-17-2010, 16:25
I'm not sure about the status of convicted felons. (Should people like Brian Regan, Aldrich Ames, or Adam Pearlman / Adam Yahiye Gadahn be allowed to vote?)
.[/COLOR]
A convicted Felon, including Martha Stewart, has to petition the court to have thier civil (?) rights restored. That includes the ability to get a passport or vote.
State of Washington has this. I was to lazy to do a national search this was one of the first anwers to "convicted felons voting rights"
•If you were convicted in Washington State Superior Court, your right to vote is restored as long as you are not either in prison or on community custody for that felony with the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC).
The race of American statesmen has evidently dwindled most remarkable in the course of the last fifty years..."
I wonder what de Tocqueville would say today. :eek:
But that is an interesting point. Perhaps the voters would choose such a candidate. I would like to think so.
I would surmise he would tend to agree still with this previous observation:
The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.
- Alexis de Tocqueville, De la démocratie en Amérique Chapter XIII
Richard's $.02 :munchin
IIRC, the Federalists started having discussions like this after the 1800 election. By 1816....:confused::eek::( And yet, I cannot help wondering if there is some mechanism that produces better voting practice and outcomes. (No, I'm not sure exactly what "better" might mean). I do not know if changing the rules would lead to "better" outcomes. The most educated people I know own property or pay taxes (some do both). They mostly voted for the current president.
IMO politics are a form of competition. If one loses a competitive match, does one seek victory by changing the rules or by improving one's ability to compete?
FWIW--
Gordon Wood offers his take on the role property ownership played in the Founders' thinking in his essay "Interests and Disinterestedness in the Making of the Constitution" in ISBN-13 9780807841723.
Election results from 1787-1825 are available here (http://elections.lib.tufts.edu/aas_portal/download.xq). If you use really big pages, you can import the data into a spreadsheet about 6,000 pages long.:p
The Declaration of Sentiments of the 1848 Seneca Falls Conference is available here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/senecafalls.html).
The Susan B. Anthony Center for Women's Leadership has information and resources on the suffrage movement here (http://www.rochester.edu/SBA/suffragehistory.html).
The national platform of the Republican Party for the 1856 election is available here (http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htm).
Population data for the 1920 census is available here (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1920.htm).
A breakdown of federal tax revenue since 1950 is available here (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/content/data/revenue2.xls).
Abolish the IRS and go to a straight consumption tax. Everyone pays the tax based on the goods they purchase so everyone gets to vote.
ZonieDiver
02-18-2010, 13:41
Abolish the IRS and go to a straight consumption tax. Everyone pays the tax based on the goods they purchase so everyone gets to vote.
I'll go along with that, but ONLY if they repeal the 16th Amendment first, or soon we'd have both VAT and income taxes!
alright4u
02-18-2010, 20:33
How big can the government worker unions (Local/state/Federal) get before it's Government Workers - and then everyone else?
More than one government union is flexing it's muscles.
I seem to recall some movie about a cute little plant. It loved to say "Feed Me". It kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Before too long "Feed Me" took on a whole new meaning.
That is damn near certain reality now.
Edgerusher71
02-20-2010, 15:06
I wonder where do college students fit into this?
Granted we don't pay taxes with the exception of summer jobs on the most part however we are in a position where we can study the political climate of the nation be it through a major or on our own time because we have the luxury of not having another occupation. This obviously doesn't allow us to have as great a personal risk as most of the members of this board but I do feel we are still capable of making intelligent well thought out decisions that even if aren't agreed with can be viewed as if there was some research or effort put into it.
I take into consideration that students my age and younger don't have a vested interest in the most current issues however I will have graduated during the first term of our current president so I feel i have somewhat of stake in what's going on nonetheless.
craigepo
02-20-2010, 15:26
Edgerusher
The argument herein is, essentially, whether the right to vote should be paired with qualifiers and/or disqualifiers. The general notion on this board as to disqualifiers is that "barnacles on the ass of society" should not vote(they being people who do not work or otherwise contribute to society).
I would say that college students, unlike those who live off the government dole, at least should contribute in the future, and would get to vote.
The question is not who is able to vote, but who should properly be afforded the right. At present, it is all an academic discussion, as the voting laws are pretty clear. However, these issuance of these rights has evolved along with the country, ergo the present discussion as to whether our present rules have gone too far.
Edgerusher71
02-20-2010, 16:05
Yes I agree with you.
I merely presented the argument because in my limited experience the "liberal, pacifist pussy" as TR put it tended be around my age which along with the naive stereotype has helped create a certain stigma, which has been unfortunately been earned to a degree. Now back to my lane I contributed what I needed to, I'll sit back and read the rest.
doctom54
02-20-2010, 20:13
"the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37°C"
Robert Heinlein "Starship Troopers"
I agree with Heinlein and the Founding Fathers in that there should NOT be universal suffrage. The above is an example of service to the nation being a requirement.
I read an interview one time (I believe it was with Heinlein, but memory is imperfect) and the person suggested that you go to the voting booth and you have to solve a quadratic equation then the machine allows you to vote. This would base it to some degree on intelligence.
Originally, you had to be a land owner in order to vote.
Whether it be service or intelligence or ownership or paying taxes there should be some criteria in order to vote other than 18 years old and 37 degrees C.
ZonieDiver
02-20-2010, 21:45
"the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37°C"
Robert Heinlein "Starship Troopers"
I agree with Heinlein and the Founding Fathers in that there should NOT be universal suffrage. The above is an example of service to the nation being a requirement.
I read an interview one time (I believe it was with Heinlein, but memory is imperfect) and the person suggested that you go to the voting booth and you have to solve a quadratic equation then the machine allows you to vote. This would base it to some degree on intelligence.
Originally, you had to be a land owner in order to vote.
Whether it be service or intelligence or ownership or paying taxes there should be some criteria in order to vote other than 18 years old and 37 degrees C.
Crap! Anything but quadratic equations! Ask me to quote the Constitution of the United States of America. Ask me to list the political beliefs of Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Taft, T Roosevelt, or FD Roosevelt... but NOT quadratic equations. Please....
Voting in America - not as universal as one might think.
- http://www.pbs.org/elections/timeline/TL_MainFrame.html
Richard
GratefulCitizen
02-20-2010, 22:37
Voting in America - not as universal as one might think.
- http://www.pbs.org/elections/timeline/TL_MainFrame.html
Richard
From the 1789-1830 section:
In fact, the Democratic Party is the world's oldest continuously functioning mass political party.
I beg to differ with the word "functioning". :D