Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote

[Kondor3]

...Those uneducated people can still make the decision on who should represent them...

Correct. As things currently stand.

Should we continue to move forward in that same manner?

I don't know.

There are good and true arguments for both perspectives.

On the 'negative' side, we can't perpetually sustain conditions in which uneducated folk continue to vote-in representatives who promise to preserve and/or increase The Dole.

Financial Responsibility vs. Nanny Statism seems to be the single most divisive issue on the American political canvas in our present age.

...Should a proxy be designated to decide what is best for the poor and uneducated? Or should they decide for themselves?

Poor and illiterate are not the same thing, even if a higher incidence of illiteracy occurs amongst poor folk.

If we ever decide to bar illiterate folk from voting, I, for one, would assume that they would not get a 'proxy' who would simply vote the same way they would.

As to what is 'best' for the poor and uneducated, well, will they not stereotypically vote for those who promise to preserve and/or increase The Dole?

My money is on the answer to that being a resounding 'Yes'.

And, if true, is that not what we would be attempting to defend against - namely, Perpetual Dolists, forever voting to perpetuate and increase The Dole?

Over the long haul, that's suicidal... a sure-fire recipe for National Bankruptcy... and something that we don't need to bring down upon our heads,, now or later, if practicable.

Why permit conditions (the continued enfranchisement of a growing Dolist Population) that do nothing but perpetuate and increase The Dole?

That makes very little sense, over the long haul, and in the grander scheme of things, when viewed on the macro level.

Placing such voting restrictions on poor folk, simply for being poor, is simply far too un-palatable, for any but the most hyper-right-leaning folk.

But placing such voting restrictions on the uneducated can be argued more dispassionately and calmly and efficiently, and can be better defended.

Literacy is the most agreeable test of such education or lack thereof, and, of course, even if such an approach were animated within the American political fabric, the bar would be set fairly low, so that some basic and demonstrable competency with the Three Rs - as evidenced by a diploma from a grade school or high school - would probably suffice.

Now... whether that's a good idea, moving forward, as we contemplate changes to Voter Eligibility requirements, is another matter.

Looks good on paper, anyway.

 

[Kondor3]

Poor people are more likely to serve their country than the wealthy. Shouldn't they have the right to vote for those who may send them to war?

That's a damned good question, and one that has been plaguing the Public Hive-Mind since at least Vietnam times.

Is the answer a resurrection of The Draft for National Service, with the loopholes plugged, so that rich boys and girls don't get an "out" for going to school?

 

[paddymurphy]

Why exactly? It's easy to slate something, no so easy to articulate it.

It's so easy a caveman could figure it, and I will not spoonfeed idiots until they exhaust their clueless self-abasement.

Sounds like the best get out clause for someone who can't explain themselves.

So I'll give you a bit of advice.

When I debate, I back up what I say. The MAIN reason I do so is to make sure what I have said is right. Then when I know I am probably right I don't need to resort to insults because I put my foot in something that simply isn't true.

All you have done is said "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I asked you to explain why. You then just make a get out clause with the insinuation that someone is stupid who doesn't agree with you, even though you won't back up what you said.

Someone who just believes is someone who doesn't know.

I shouldn't need to back up what I said in this case, and I hate leading the slow.

The explanation is as easy as pie, and common sense.

Without knowing what your rights are, you cannot vote with any certainty that the candidate for whom you vote - the one who supports "your interests" - will see to "your interests" with any care as to your rights. You will be voting blind. Not only that, but you will be negating a vote from someone who is unlike yourself educated as to his rights and how those rights affect society as a whole and himself individually.

Indeed, "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I see no reason to permit the welfare pookies to vote to increase their own take of people's private assets and destroy everyone else's rights in the meantime, among other things. I would restrict voting to those educated and contributory to society. Anything else is like letting children vote.

Makes no sense

Knowing your rights affects other areas of citizenship. I can decide which candidate meets my needs without memorizing the constitution

It is you who lacks a knowledge of our constitution by trying to limit voting rights of We the People

Yo want to prevent a welfare recipient from voting for more free stuff but are willing to ignore the free stuff that a CEO is getting

I would definitely require YOU to test before being permitted to vote.

Since we vote nearly every year, usually twice each year, how often do we test the nearly 200 million folks eligible to vote? How often do we retest them? How much do you think that will cost? Are there appeals? Voting is a right that is subject to the constitution. So, each person denied the right to vote gets their day in federal court. Who determine the questions on this test? Which answer is right? you earlier stated that the test was whether one worked. Then you changed it to pays taxes. What taxes? State, local or federal? Do sales taxes, gas taxes, social security taxes count. Does a person who is brilliant with regard to our history and constitution but does not work get to vote? How about a millionaire who is an idiot about our government (trumps comes to mind)? Does the taxes they pay mean more that their utter stupidity. I have a brother in law who made several million in his life, had a massive stroke and is now disabled, does not work and collects social security. Does he vote? Frankly, is stupidity bars one from voting, your posing of this nonsense would disqualify you.

 

[paddymurphy]

Billy simply wants to keep Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.

Show me the Constitutional right to vote.

As Professor Epps makes clear, not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, fourseparate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .” Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.

 

[paddymurphy]

...My only agenda is to have fun responding to the mentally defective nutter like you who, sadly, are serious about the fascist notions you hold. No rational American, with any understamding of the nature of democracy, would find your ideas anything but outrageously wrong.

Pray, tell us, which amongst these, do you find to be 'fascist' in nature?

-------------------

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

---------------

Given that a number of these are already built into the Constitution, and that one or more simply lend themselves to enforcing other criteria, DO tell us what is particularly 'fascist' about those you object to,

This thread is an open discussion pertaining to changing the criteria for voting, and I merely tossed in a couple of extras which had already been mentioned elsewhere, to sweeten the discussion pot.

Simply labeling them as 'fascist' and throwing rocks at the articulator, like some kind of petulant child, is not the mark of an all-'round high-order contributor.

Otherwise, you indulge me in one of MY rarely-but-immensely-enjoyed Fun Agenda items... namely, calling-out lightweights who don't have anything behind their opening salvo but rock-throwing and name-calling.

Now... in an increasingly complex world, where basic education and perception and decision-making skills can arguably be judged as mandatory, in order to vote, and in a world where there is a marked tendency for the masses to vote themselves long-term benefits that they do not have to pay for, and which, if left unchecked for another generation or two, will surely bankrupt us...

DO tell us, Oh Wise One, what is particularly 'fascist' about any of the points, above.

You are also welcome to address the resolution of those Education and Welfare-State issues in some other fashion, assuming that you (1) recognize them as problems and (2) have the capacity to conjure and articulate other possibilities.

This isn't about what's Currently Politically Correct, junior, this is about the long-term health and survival and well-being of the Republic, and its People, without going bankrupt, or serving-up Welfare Mob Rule to our grandchildren or their grandchildren, and ensuring that we have the right mix of criteria for voting, moving forward, is a key element of that long-term survival.

Simple citizenship is not enough. To this day, we continue to restrict voting privileges based upon age, mental capacity and (in some states) felony conviction status.

We have, in the past, removed (and rightfully so) restrictions regarding property, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

There is nothing that prevents us in future from fine-tuning the List of Voting Restrictions to include other categories not previously imagined or deemed necessary in earlier times, but which present as needful or wise, in our present or some future time.

If there is sufficient merit in a given Limitation or Collection of Limitations and if there is sufficient agreement amongst the People, then we will have a Constitutional Amendment to embed such within our system.

This thread speculates upon such Limitations, as one tiny portion of that national conversation.

So, if your 'agenda of fun' includes anything beyond Basic Rock-Throwing 101 and Name-Calling 102, then DO feel free to tell us more about your opinions, and why some of the above is a Bad Idea.

The floor is yours.

( this ought to be good )

3,4,5 & 8.

 

[there4eyeM]

First, a test to become a parent.

 

[rightwinger]

...Those uneducated people can still make the decision on who should represent them...

Correct. As things currently stand.

Should we continue to move forward in that same manner?

I don't know.

There are good and true arguments for both perspectives.

On the 'negative' side, we can't perpetually sustain conditions in which uneducated folk continue to vote-in representatives who promise to preserve and/or increase The Dole.

Financial Responsibility vs. Nanny Statism seems to be the single most divisive issue on the American political canvas in our present age.

...Should a proxy be designated to decide what is best for the poor and uneducated? Or should they decide for themselves?

Poor and illiterate are not the same thing, even if a higher incidence of illiteracy occurs amongst poor folk.

If we ever decide to bar illiterate folk from voting, I, for one, would assume that they would not get a 'proxy' who would simply vote the same way they would.

As to what is 'best' for the poor and uneducated, well, will they not stereotypically vote for those who promise to preserve and/or increase The Dole?

My money is on the answer to that being a resounding 'Yes'.

And, if true, is that not what we would be attempting to defend against - namely, Perpetual Dolists, forever voting to perpetuate and increase The Dole?

Over the long haul, that's suicidal... a sure-fire recipe for National Bankruptcy... and something that we don't need to bring down upon our heads,, now or later, if practicable.

Why permit conditions (the continued enfranchisement of a growing Dolist Population) that do nothing but perpetuate and increase The Dole?

That makes very little sense, over the long haul, and in the grander scheme of things, when viewed on the macro level.

Placing such voting restrictions on poor folk, simply for being poor, is simply far too un-palatable, for any but the most hyper-right-leaning folk.

But placing such voting restrictions on the uneducated can be argued more dispassionately and calmly and efficiently, and can be better defended.

Literacy is the most agreeable test of such education or lack thereof, and, of course, even if such an approach were animated within the American political fabric, the bar would be set fairly low, so that some basic and demonstrable competency with the Three Rs - as evidenced by a diploma from a grade school or high school - would probably suffice.

Now... whether that's a good idea, moving forward, as we contemplate changes to Voter Eligibility requirements, is another matter.

Looks good on paper, anyway.

Poor people vote for more public services
Rich people vote for lower taxes

each looks out for his own interests

 

[mudwhistle]

VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV

Great point.

The first question should be "Was Obama born in Kenya?"

And if one says "Yes," not only should not be able to vote, they should have to enroll in school and pass all 12 grades, no matter what their age.

Maybe a better question is "Who has taken $700 billion dollars from Medicare to pay for his health care program?"

 

[there4eyeM]

Educated people have such an overwhelming advantage over the uneducated that it is difficult to understand their fear.

 

[rightwinger]

We had this same issue in the late 60s

18 year olds could be drafted to risk their lives for their country but could not vote for those who send them

A basic right of citizens

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy simply wants to keep Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.

Show me the Constitutional right to vote.

As Professor Epps makes clear, not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, fourseparate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .” Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.

Leaving out parts is a nasty business. The text reads:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

 

[JakeStarkey]

VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV

Great point.

The first question should be "Was Obama born in Kenya?"

And if one says "Yes," not only should not be able to vote, they should have to enroll in school and pass all 12 grades, no matter what their age.

Maybe a better question is "Who has taken $700 billion dollars from Medicare to pay for his health care program?"

Not true. Try again.

 

[rightwinger]

Billy simply wants to keep Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.

Show me the Constitutional right to vote.

As Professor Epps makes clear, not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, fourseparate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .” Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.

Leaving out parts is a nasty business. The text reads:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

But it was you who said the Constitution does not specify a right to vote

 

[JakeStarkey]

A good portion of America for a long time was not literate.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy simply wants to keep Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.

Show me the Constitutional right to vote.

As Professor Epps makes clear, not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, fourseparate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .” Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.

Leaving out parts is a nasty business. The text reads:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

But it was you who said the Constitution does not specify a right to vote

So post the Constitutional specification.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

A good portion of America for a long time was not literate.

They weren't sucking at the government teat, either.

 

[rightwinger]

Billy simply wants to keep Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.

Show me the Constitutional right to vote.

As Professor Epps makes clear, not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, fourseparate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .” Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.

Leaving out parts is a nasty business. The text reads:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

But it was you who said the Constitution does not specify a right to vote

So post the Constitutional specification.

Read post 184 also supported by 200 years of case law
Specifically related to poll taxes and literacy tests

 

[rightwinger]

A good portion of America for a long time was not literate.

They weren't sucking at the government teat, either.

There are many wealthy literate people who make fortunes sucking on the government teat

 

[Kondor3]

...Poor people vote for more public services
Rich people vote for lower taxes
each looks out for his own interests

Does not the vast Middle Class and Blue Collar Working Class also usually vote for lower taxes?

But, although there is a higher incidence of Illiteracy amongst the Poor, the two categories are, indeed, distinguishable, and may safely be treated separately.

The sole benefit of any such restriction on Literacy would probably be a 'thinning out of the herd' a bit, to modestly reduce the size of the Dolist voting bloc.

Given that the Dolists rely upon the productivity and taxation of the rest of us, should they have an equal voice in distributing a pool of money to which they do not contribute?

It's an old debate that we have not yet resolved - at least not on a permanent basis, given that it keeps bubbling to the surface every so often.

And there is considerable merit in some of the arguments on both sides of that debate, IMHO.

 

[mudwhistle]

Educated people have such an overwhelming advantage over the uneducated that it is difficult to understand their fear.

So why do Democrats want so many uneducated people to sneak into this country?