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..."

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"

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::( 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. 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.
• The Susan B. Anthony Center for Women's Leadership has information and resources on the suffrage movement here.
• The national platform of the Republican Party for the 1856 election is available here.
• Population data for the 1920 census is available here.
• A breakdown of federal tax revenue since 1950 is available here.
  

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!

GOV Workers VS US.
 

That is damn near certain reality now.

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.

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.

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.

suffrage
 

"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

From the 1789-1830 section:
I beg to differ with the word "functioning". :D