Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote

[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.

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."

And the other four amendments that mention it? The numerous voting rights cases that have held that limiting based on things like the ability to pay a poll tax or to passa test were unconstitutional? Your entire argument is based on the lie that people on welfare vote to stay on welfare. Most don't vote at all.

 

[Camp]

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.

When did voting become a privilege and not a right? Why are so many here unaware or just ignoring the constitutional judgements by the Supreme Court such as Guinn v. US and legislation such as the Voting Rights Act's of 1965 and 1970 that forbid or disallow literacy tests? Seems like a long thread for a topic that appears to be so clear cut.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

That is precisely how companies vote. Shareholders all have votes based on the shares they hold. You are proving yourself to be a profound idiot.

 

[paddymurphy]

...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.

Wel, since the democrats have won the popular vote in most elections and, according to the right, all democrats do is raise taxes, I guess most Americans favorite taxes. Cause taxe policy is the only factor that influences any one's vote, right?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Voting is a fundamental right and can only be limited for a compelling governmental reason. Enabling Republicans to donore elections is not a compelling reason.

 

[Truth2Know]

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?

That is precisely how companies vote. Shareholders all have votes based on the shares they hold. You are proving yourself to be a profound idiot.

You are proving a deficit in your reading comprehension. Read my post again, concentrating on the "and only one" clause.

Apology accepted.

 

[Kondor3]

...Why are so many here unaware or just ignoring the constitutional judgements by the Supreme Court such as Guinn v. US and legislation such as the Voting Rights Act's of 1965 and 1970 that forbid or disallow literacy tests? Seems like a long thread for a topic that appears to be so clear cut.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the challenge here is to debate whether allowing this state of affairs to continue is a good idea.

If that means passing an amended Voting Rights Act or similar, well, then, that is what is needed.

If that means passing a fresh Constitutional Amendment in order to deter such judicial interference, well, then, that is what is needed.

The question before 'the bar' seems to be whether or not such an effort is worthwhile.

We know that it CAN be done, in a Constitutionally legal manner, by simply changing the Constitution to suit.

But, of course, just because we (The People) CAN do a thing. does not necessarily mean that we SHOULD do such a thing.

It is the DO or DON'T-DO question that occupies us here, rather than whether any present (and overcome-able) barriers are extant at present.

Which opens-up all kinds of sidebars as to ethics and morality and right and wrong and fairness and unfairness and financial wisdom and largess and all the rest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Voting is a right.

That won't change.

 

[Kondor3]

Voting is a right.

That won't change.

Restrictions on that right already exist.

The precedent is already there.

The question now before the bar is whether any additional restrictions should be brought into existence.

 

[Camp]

Voting is a right.

That won't change.

Restrictions on that right already exist.

The precedent is already there.

The question now before the bar is whether any additional restrictions should be brought into existence.

OK, I agree with your conclusion. I think it means that if we want to, with the proper procedure being followed we can take the vote away from woman, blacks, girls with red hair, anyone who doesn't watch football and make people take test to prove they have some kind of knowledge about something.
Seriously, this topic was brought into the public realm this week with comments made by Ann Coulter during a FOX NEWS interview and it has become a cause for the robotic followers of Coulter and FOX. A sign of desperation as they see all of their candidates being out polled and beaten by of all people, Bernie Sanders. It must be disheartening to know your best and brightest conseratives are doomed to get their asses kicked by an avowed socialist.

 

[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

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.

What you call "the dole" I call helping people who need help

I just wonder why we seem to think that the one percent need help

 

[rightwinger]

Voting is a right.

That won't change.

Restrictions on that right already exist.

The precedent is already there.

The question now before the bar is whether any additional restrictions should be brought into existence.

Current restrictions are age and being mentally sound

You want to add financial ability to it

 

[Kondor3]

...OK, I agree with your conclusion. I think it means that if we want to, with the proper procedure being followed we can take the vote away from woman, blacks, girls with red hair, anyone who doesn't watch football and make people take test to prove they have some kind of knowledge about something...

True.

But those questions have long-since been answered.

This is a new question.

Should Welfare Recipients be allowed to vote to perpetuate their place on The Dole?

New questions call for new discussion and new answers.

No need to revisit the past.

...Seriously, this topic was brought into the public realm this week with comments made by Ann Coulter during a FOX NEWS interview and it has become a cause for the robotic followers of Coulter and FOX. A sign of desperation as they see all of their candidates being out polled and beaten by of all people, Bernie Sanders. It must be disheartening to know your best and brightest conseratives are doomed to get their asses kicked by an avowed socialist.

I have no idea what triggered the latest round of debate.

Although, given the 'shellacking' (Obumble's own words) that the Democrats took in the House, in 2010, and in 2014, and also losing the Senate in 2014, I submit that the only poll that truly matters is the poll taken in the voting booth, and that the last couple of sorties by you folk haven't gone very well for you.

I exclude Obumble's re-election given that it wasn't so much a vote for the Incumbent as it was a vote against Mittens... Mister Forty-Seven Percent.

Had the Pubs run somebody halfway decent against Obumble, they might have taken the White House, as well... a Triple Threat, rather than the present Double.

And... given that Hillary (with sideshows by Bernie and Uncle Joe) are all that you have warming-up in the bullpen, well, I wouldn't count those chickens before they hatch.

But, getting back to the topic at-hand...

It's true that we could, through legal Constitutional means, enfranchise or disenfranchise anybody we want, given the requisite tweaking of the Constitution...

The trouble with your other example is, that nobody really wants to head down that road, in disenfranchising those others..

However, when it comes to chronic Welfare Queens and Kings (those on SNAP, TANF and Medicaid or similar) for protracted periods of time, well....

Allowing them to continue to vote is tantamount to giving them a considerable degree of control over the National Purse Strings...

Something that will lead to National Bankruptcy in the not-too-distant future, should our present trend towards Nanny Statism be allowed to continue...

And, of course, one way to ensure that Nanny Statism does NOT continue, is to take the Welfare Queens and Kings out of the loop, at the voting booth...

Perhaps it's the best way...

But that's up to the Nation at-large to decide, after some dialogue on the subject, assuming that The People want to revisit this aspect of public life and treasury emptying.

 

[Kondor3]

Voting is a right.

That won't change.

Restrictions on that right already exist.

The precedent is already there.

The question now before the bar is whether any additional restrictions should be brought into existence.

Current restrictions are age and being mentally sound

You want to add financial ability to it

Nope...

But any attempt to bar Welfare Recipients from voting would ensure that only fiscally responsible taxpayers are deciding what to do with their own tax dollars...

Otherwise, it's like giving a kid the keys to the candy store...

 

[Kondor3]

...What you call "the dole" I call helping people who need help...

Indeed, there is a difference of opinion there.

Temporary help is one thing.

Long-term and chronic dependency and Nanny Statism is quite another.

The former is a lightweight interim accommodation that no honest citizen of goodwill would dream of denying to his fellow countrymen to get them through a tough stretch.

The latter is a way of life and represents a huge drain upon the national treasury and its taxpayers and is productivity and represents a threat to the future of the Nation.

...I just wonder why we seem to think that the one percent need help

We don't.

But we're not focused on them at the moment.

 

[rightwinger]

Voting is a right.

That won't change.

Restrictions on that right already exist.

The precedent is already there.

The question now before the bar is whether any additional restrictions should be brought into existence.

Current restrictions are age and being mentally sound

You want to add financial ability to it

Nope...

But any attempt to bar Welfare Recipients from voting would ensure that only fiscally responsible taxpayers are deciding what to do with their own tax dollars...

Otherwise, it's like giving a kid the keys to the candy store...

It is more than tax dollars

Politicians decide to go to war. You think poor people shouldn't get to pick representatives that send their kids to war?
It is the poor kids who do the fighting. We know Trumps kids don't

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the far right reactionaries were tested, more than 70% would fail.

 

[rightwinger]

If the far right reactionaries were tested, more than 70% would fail.

Revisionist history will do that

 

[Kondor3]

...Politicians decide to go to war. You think poor people shouldn't get to pick representatives that send their kids to war?
It is the poor kids who do the fighting. We know Trumps kids don't

Now THAT is a reason that I, for one, can buy into, as one for the 'Why we should continue to allow them to vote' column. Ditto for a great many others, I'll wager, who remember the Era of the Vietnam Draft Dodgers.

 

[Camp]

...OK, I agree with your conclusion. I think it means that if we want to, with the proper procedure being followed we can take the vote away from woman, blacks, girls with red hair, anyone who doesn't watch football and make people take test to prove they have some kind of knowledge about something...

True.

But those questions have long-since been answered.

This is a new question.

Should Welfare Recipients be allowed to vote to perpetuate their place on The Dole?

New questions call for new discussion and new answers.

No need to revisit the past.

...Seriously, this topic was brought into the public realm this week with comments made by Ann Coulter during a FOX NEWS interview and it has become a cause for the robotic followers of Coulter and FOX. A sign of desperation as they see all of their candidates being out polled and beaten by of all people, Bernie Sanders. It must be disheartening to know your best and brightest conseratives are doomed to get their asses kicked by an avowed socialist.

I have no idea what triggered the latest round of debate.

Although, given the 'shellacking' (Obumble's own words) that the Democrats took in the House, in 2010, and in 2014, and also losing the Senate in 2014, I submit that the only poll that truly matters is the poll taken in the voting booth, and that the last couple of sorties by you folk haven't gone very well for you.

I exclude Obumble's re-election given that it wasn't so much a vote for the Incumbent as it was a vote against Mittens... Mister Forty-Seven Percent.

Had the Pubs run somebody halfway decent against Obumble, they might have taken the White House, as well... a Triple Threat, rather than the present Double.

And... given that Hillary (with sideshows by Bernie and Uncle Joe) are all that you have warming-up in the bullpen, well, I wouldn't count those chickens before they hatch.

But, getting back to the topic at-hand...

It's true that we could, through legal Constitutional means, enfranchise or disenfranchise anybody we want, given the requisite tweaking of the Constitution...

The trouble with your other example is, that nobody really wants to head down that road, in disenfranchising those others..

However, when it comes to chronic Welfare Queens and Kings (those on SNAP, TANF and Medicaid or similar) for protracted periods of time, well....

Allowing them to continue to vote is tantamount to giving them a considerable degree of control over the National Purse Strings...

Something that will lead to National Bankruptcy in the not-too-distant future, should our present trend towards Nanny Statism be allowed to continue...

And, of course, one way to ensure that Nanny Statism does NOT continue, is to take the Welfare Queens and Kings out of the loop, at the voting booth...

Perhaps it's the best way...

But that's up to the Nation at-large to decide, after some dialogue on the subject, assuming that The People want to revisit this aspect of public life and treasury emptying.

This is what I identify as the disease of spinicitus. That is when so many spins are believed that conclusions are made purely from spin. Nanny state, welfare kings and queens, national bankruptcy, even something you call Nanny Statism. These are words used to create spins. The accuracy of such terms to defining reality are far from being accurate assessments or factual data to be used in a genuine analysis of what is real and what is made up for propaganda purposes. The idea, for example, that welfare recipients control elections is ridiculous. I would love to see the data on that. How many welfare recipients bother to vote? Lets go a step further and identify what is "welfare". When the Romney 47% thing was going on we were hearing that Social Security folks were really on an entitlement program. Are veterans on an entitlement program when they collect disability or health benefits? So who is going to determine who is on welfare? Is unemployment compensation welfare? Does the killed in action veteran's mom lose her vote because she collects food stamps or medicaid? Imagine that, some old woman who gave up her only son for the country doesn't get to vote because she choose's to eat and go to see a doctor.