Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote

[JakeStarkey]

If we let the mudwhistles in, we can let the illiterate in as well.

The OP is ludicrous.

 

[rightwinger]

...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.

I'm glad to see you admit to your intent
Keeping the lower classes from voting

Why don't you advocate taking the vote away from rich people? They get more from the government than poor people do

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

Many legal decisions are based upon error credited to case law. That is why there is no such thing as "settled law".

Take Dred Scott for instance. Roe v Wade. Marbury v Madison.

There is no Constitutional right to vote, and the right can be taken away except under noted conditions.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

My point. Stupid voters are the Democrats' playground.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

My point. Stupid voters are the Democrats' playground.

Mitt Romney made it clear what he thought about the 47%

Turned out only 47% would vote for Romney

 

[JakeStarkey]

Voting is in an inalienable right.

Try to take it away, either party, and see what happens to it.

 

[Kondor3]

...3,4,5 & 8

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

Why? You must present a valid ID for so many other aspects of our public life. Why should doing it in the context of 'voting' be any different? Especially when the object of the exercise is to prevent Illegal Aliens and other unauthorized people from casting a ballot. And most especially if accommodations can be made to ensure that even the poorest amongst us have easy access to the process for obtaining such ID card(s). And, given that we must present IDs so frequently in other aspects of our everyday public life, how does the presentation of an ID card at voting time constitute something as onerous as 'fascism', as you have alleged?

...4. has passed a standardized national literacy test...

Oh, that's a Limit on the Franchise, to be sure, but not all Limitations to the Franchise can rightfully be labeled as 'fascist' (whatever that is, other than a convenient handle).

If a person is illiterate, are they competent to judge the best choices, for political representation or what is and is not in the best interests of the Nation and its People?

There is a legitimate school of thought which says 'No', as evidenced by recurring national conversations on this subject, every so often.

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

Yes. I understand your angst over this one. I'm fairly uncomfortable with this one myself. But discomfort and the doing of what is right, can be two distinctly different things.

Can we afford to perpetually sustain and expand Nanny-Statism (cradle-to-grave welfare accommodations) forever?

No.

Do those at the bottom of the barrel (on SNAP, TANF, etc.) usually vote for whoever is going to sustain and expand their welfare benefits?

Yes.

Is this not a self-defeating cycle that has never been broken in the several decades since large-scale and sustained Welfare first made its appearance way back in the 1960s with LBJ';s famous (or infamous) War on Poverty, which is still with us, and which has not yet yielded a decisive downward turn in Permanent Dolists?

Yes.

We have not yet succeeded in getting these people off The Dole.

And they keep voting to keep people in power who perpetuate The Dole.

Dolists want their Dole.

When does it end?

If we haven't been able to drag them off the Dole in the past 50 years, are other tactics becoming necessary, in a changing world, with increasingly shrinking resources?

Yes.

Is this one of those tactics?

Perhaps.

...8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces...

Disagree.

This is a mere extension of the Convicted Felon restriction in some jurisdictions, it would seem, but one that would require implementation on the Federal level.

There are a great many things that you cannot do in American public and private life, if you have been Dishonorably Discharged from the US Armed Forces.

Are those other restrictions also 'fascist' in your eyes, or only with respect to voting?

Personally, I'd be quite content to see us, as a People, take this approach, for those who have dishonored themselves and their country while wearing its uniform.

But that's just me.

 

[Kondor3]

Voting is in an inalienable right.

Try to take it away, either party, and see what happens to it.

An inalienable right? Tell that to an under-age American, or a convicted felon, or an Illegal Alien, or a legally-declared mental incompetent.

We already have (and have long had) restrictions on who may vote in this country, and we still do.

Every so often, we revisit the fine-tuning of those restrictions, based upon the needs of the Nation and its People.

This is just one more trip down that discussion-path.

 

[Kondor3]

...I'm glad to see you admit to your intent. Keeping the lower classes from voting...

Why not? It's glaringly obvious, with or without the admission, isn't it?

But, then again, it's not Poor Folk that such a restriction would apply to... merely those on The Dole (SNAP, TANF, etc.).

You can be Poor, or Lower-Middle Class, and working, and contributing, and not be on The Dole.

So, a great many Po' Folk would still be voting, anyway.

...Why don't you advocate taking the vote away from rich people? They get more from the government than poor people do

Whatever for?

They're not a burden on the Public Treasury.

Now, if you want to revisit Taxation and Loopholes and Gubmint Contracts, that's fine.

In addition to preventing those on The Dole from voting, as a macro-level Conflict of Interest...

In trade...

What restrictions would you put on voting, for Rich Folk?

 

[Kondor3]

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

The vote gets overly-diluted in favor of Nanny-Statism, which, ultimately, is a slow kind of financial and societal suicide, even though it might take a few generations?

 

[rightwinger]

...I'm glad to see you admit to your intent. Keeping the lower classes from voting...

Why not? It's glaringly obvious, with or without the admission, isn't it?

But, then again, it's not Poor Folk that such a restriction would apply to... merely those on The Dole (SNAP, TANF, etc.).

You can be Poor, or Lower-Middle Class, and working, and contributing, and not be on The Dole.

So, a great many Po' Folk would still be voting, anyway.

...Why don't you advocate taking the vote away from rich people? They get more from the government than poor people do

Whatever for?

They're not a burden on the Public Treasury.

Now, if you want to revisit Taxation and Loopholes and Gubmint Contracts, that's fine.

In addition to preventing those on The Dole from voting, as a macro-level Conflict of Interest...

In trade...

What restrictions would you put on voting, for Rich Folk?

Rich people abide by the golden rule....he who has the gold, makes the rules

If a new bridge project will help a wealthy person who owns acres and acres of real estate on the other side of a river.......should that person be able to vote for the candidate who is pushing for the bridge to be built?

 

[Kondor3]

...If a new bridge project will help a wealthy person who owns acres and acres of real estate on the other side of a river.......should that person be able to vote for the candidate who is pushing for the bridge to be built?

Yes. Because the number of people voting for that reason are sufficiently small so that small-scale Conflicts of Interest do not usually win, for purely those reasons.

And, because the cost of The Bridge is peanuts, compared to The Dole, and enforcement would be far too difficult.

On the flip side, the number of people on the Dole is vast, and sufficiently large so that large-scale Conflicts of Interest oftentimes DO win, for purely those reasons.

And, of course, because the cost of The Dole is enormous and growing more dangerously close to bankrupting us with each passing decade, and because enforcement would be relatively easy, through a simple real-time accessing of Welfare Rolls.

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

We can't eliminate ALL voting-related Conflicts of Interest, but we can eliminate SOME, and it makes sense to devote our limited enforcement resources to those Conflicts of Interest that have the most impact on our financial and societal health, rather than getting sidetracked with the penny ante stuff.

Or so it seems, at first glance.

 

[rightwinger]

...If a new bridge project will help a wealthy person who owns acres and acres of real estate on the other side of a river.......should that person be able to vote for the candidate who is pushing for the bridge to be built?

Yes. Because the number of people voting for that reason are sufficiently small so that small-scale Conflicts of Interest do not usually win, for purely those reasons.

And, because the cost of The Bridge is peanuts, compared to The Dole, and enforcement would be far too difficult.

On the flip side, the number of people on the Dole is vast, and sufficiently large so that large-scale Conflicts of Interest oftentimes DO win, for purely those reasons.

And, of course, because the cost of The Dole is enormous and growing more dangerously close to bankrupting us with each passing decade, and because enforcement would be relatively easy, through a simple real-time accessing of Welfare Rolls.

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

We can't eliminate ALL voting-related Conflicts of Interest, but we can eliminate SOME, and it makes sense to devote our limited enforcement resources to those Conflicts of Interest that have the most impact on our financial and societal health, rather than getting sidetracked with the penny ante stuff.

Or so it seems, at first glance.

Actually, the money spent on the poor is peanuts compared to legislation that helps the wealthy

The wealthy even manage to make money off of welfare

 

[Kondor3]

...Actually, the money spent on the poor is peanuts compared to legislation that helps the wealthy..

I don't mean to be rude, but that sure does sound 'anecdotal' to me, at first glance.

The cost of SNAP and TANF (and related Federal and State General Assistance [stereotypical welfare programming]) is enormous.

I find myself wondering whether you're anywhere close to being 'right' on that one.

...The wealthy even manage to make money off of welfare

This is not about Wealth Redistribution, or even what is 'fair'.

This is about allowing Dolists to perpetuate their place on The Dole by voting-in people who will promise to do that for them.

 

[rightwinger]

...Actually, the money spent on the poor is peanuts compared to legislation that helps the wealthy..

I don't mean to be rude, but that sure does sound 'anecdotal' to me, at first glance.

The cost of SNAP and TANF (and related Federal and State General Assistance [stereotypical welfare programming]) is enormous.

I find myself wondering whether you're anywhere close to being 'right' on that one.

...The wealthy even manage to make money off of welfare

This is not about Wealth Redistribution, or even what is 'fair'.

This is about allowing Dolists to perpetuate their place on The Dole by voting-in people who will promise to do that for them.

The wealthy are crafty enough not to seek direct handouts but find ways to write the tax code, craft labor laws, international tariffs, infrastructure improvements, subsidies, legal protections that add billions to their pockets

 

[Kondor3]

...Actually, the money spent on the poor is peanuts compared to legislation that helps the wealthy..

I don't mean to be rude, but that sure does sound 'anecdotal' to me, at first glance.

The cost of SNAP and TANF (and related Federal and State General Assistance [stereotypical welfare programming]) is enormous.

I find myself wondering whether you're anywhere close to being 'right' on that one.

...The wealthy even manage to make money off of welfare

This is not about Wealth Redistribution, or even what is 'fair'.

This is about allowing Dolists to perpetuate their place on The Dole by voting-in people who will promise to do that for them.

The wealthy are crafty enough not to seek direct handouts but find ways to write the tax code, craft labor laws, international tariffs, infrastructure improvements, subsidies, legal protections that add billions to their pockets

True, but we're talking peanuts, vs. the vast sums of money we spend perpetuating The Dole, and chronic or lifelong Dolists, who, in their own crafty and clever ways, find the means to circumvent or override Clinton-esque Welfare Reforms of the 1990s, and we're talking about the Negatives that we CAN overcome, not the ones we can't.

 

[Truth2Know]

Having a job and more money is simply an indication of the CEO's ability to rationally think and act.

Those sleeping under bridges may be highly intelligent and millionaires that choose to eschew the trappings of civilization, but why take the risk of giving such people a say in matters that impact the prosperity and safety of the entire country?

Do you want the vagrant or CEO casting the deciding vote?

Really? To think rationally and act? Hmm. Maybe they got lucky. Some CEOs are there because their father ran the company and handed it over to their son. Doesn't mean the son has these abilities.

Maybe they just simply made a company that did well because an opening existed, or because they had inside information, or because they bribed someone.....

If you do business in China, for example (and many American businesses do), you have to know how to play the system, and you can get lucky, or you can get the govt on your back and end up in prison, it's all about luck, all about Guanxi, a system of "favors" or "knowing the right people".

People sleeping under bridges might just have got unlucky in life. They might have lost their wife to cancer and become depressed. They might have been born with a mental illness and been unable to work for a particular company, been fired and others look at their work history and their letter of "recommendation" and not want to give them a new job.
So many reasons.

But here's the reason why votes should be one person one vote no matter why.

If politicians know that homeless people can't vote, they'll do nothing for homeless people. If they know homeless people can and do vote then they might change things and homeless people might have opportunities to get out of their situation.

The same theory holds for all groups of people.

Black people, for example. If they can't vote then politicians don't look out for their needs.
Women, for example. If they can't vote then politicians don't look out for their needs.

Why should homeless people be different? Surely they need someone looking out for their needs so they can get out of homelessness.

You reap what you sow.

Good night.

So if you happen to be unlucky, you reap what you sow and you should never have representation ever again? You should remain homeless because no one will ever look out for you?

I'm reading a novel about Ancient Rome and a boy who ends up in slavery. Many slaves were slaves from birth. Did they reap what they sowed? The boy had a good life but his father got killed and the boy ended up as a slave. Did he reap what he sowed?

Good afternoon. Sorry to mislead you with the “reap what you sow” comment. I was referring to the output of a voting system (what is sowed) that permits politicians to be elected that act for their own, not the country’s interests (what is reaped).

I have faith in Americans. I believe that limiting the vote to those that have jobs and/or pay taxes would not result in the election of politicians who stick it to the poor. As a nation, we have proven to be very compassionate.

Our leaders should be elected by an electorate capable of rational thought, those able to determine what policies are best for America as a whole. I proposed using the amount of Federal income and social insurance taxes paid as a metric to determine that a person is (probably) capable of rational thought and can be entrusted with the privilege of voting. I believe this voting system would enable us to reap more benefits as a nation, including improving the plight of the poor.

 

[Truth2Know]

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?

You get paid for being in the service. Thus you are working. Thus you vote.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?"

No one.

 

[Truth2Know]

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.

My proposal is to tie voting privilege to Federal income and social insurance taxes paid. The data base is already in place every year.

Allowing everyone to vote is akin to giving everyone who has at least one share in a company one, and only one, vote regarding company business. How long do you think companies would last if this were the case?