Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote

[Kondor3]

...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...

Indeed. Words define ideas. Ideas can be spun in various ways. Using yet other words. That is the function of language.

..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...

Indeed. But those words - and concern over the ideas which those words conjure - are useful, in convincing The People to revisit the issues and to seek empirical data.

...The idea, for example, that welfare recipients control elections is ridiculous...

Indeed. It all depends on the percentage of the population On-the-Dole at any given moment in time.

If a high percentage of the voting population is On-the-Dole, then it is logical to assume that that percentage strongly influences the outcome of elections.

If a low percentage of the voting population is On-the-Dole, then we come closer to your 'ridiculous' scenario.

...I would love to see the data on that. How many welfare recipients bother to vote?...

Me too.

...Lets go a step further and identify what is "welfare"...

Nope.

No need.

If somebody has formerly paid into the system (through payroll contributions, or through military service, etc.), then they should retain their voting privileges, even if they are getting some form of disability or unemployment or pension entitlement.

To avoid over-complicating the issue, we can safely limit ourselves to long-term or chronically repetitive recipients of SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, or similar State or Local Welfare.

That is a sufficiently substantial chunk of the problem to tackle and to digest as part of any first pass.

The Nation can always tweak that as needed over the course of time, but, first things first.

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

You realize, of course, that I am playing Devil's Advocate here, do you not?

I half-believe in some of what I"m espousing, and remain unconvinced of the efficacy of other aspects of such tactics.

 

[Camp]

...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...

Indeed. Words define ideas. Ideas can be spun in various ways. Using yet other words. That is the function of language.

..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...

Indeed. But those words - and concern over the ideas which those words conjure - are useful, in convincing The People to revisit the issues and to seek empirical data.

...The idea, for example, that welfare recipients control elections is ridiculous...

Indeed. It all depends on the percentage of the population On-the-Dole at any given moment in time.

If a high percentage of the voting population is On-the-Dole, then it is logical to assume that that percentage strongly influences the outcome of elections.

If a low percentage of the voting population is On-the-Dole, then we come closer to your 'ridiculous' scenario.

...I would love to see the data on that. How many welfare recipients bother to vote?...

Me too.

...Lets go a step further and identify what is "welfare"...

Nope.

No need.

If somebody has formerly paid into the system (through payroll contributions, or through military service, etc.), then they should retain their voting privileges, even if they are getting some form of disability or unemployment or pension entitlement.

To avoid over-complicating the issue, we can safely limit ourselves to long-term or chronically repetitive recipients of SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, or similar State or Local Welfare.

That is a sufficiently substantial chunk of the problem to tackle and to digest as part of any first pass.

The Nation can always tweak that as needed over the course of time, but, first things first.

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

You realize, of course, that I am playing Devil's Advocate here, do you not?

I half-believe in some of what I"m espousing, and remain unconvinced of the efficacy of other aspects of such tactics.

You are headed down a slippery slope. The old woman who lost her only son who died while in the service of his nation has not been addressed. She is to old and or to medically unfit to work. If she is unable to collect medicaid and food assistance she will go hungry and suffer or die from her illnesses. Hence, she will be on these benefits as long as she lives, which would disqualify her from voting. Now lets take another example. A young man is run over by an uninsured motorist and crippled for life. It is the kind of injury that will prevent him from ever have a sustainable living or even be able to care for himself without the help of welfare. At no fault of his own, he has lost his right to vote. He is being told that cell stem research is making great progress in finding a cure or great relief to his suffering. Problem is is that there are voters who want to elect officials who will prevent research because of objections to using cells from zygote or fetus cells. The disabled man will not be allowed to vote because he fits the identity of a person not eligible for voting. His purpose of voting is to push for action that would help him become able bodied and be able to get off of welfare, but your system will not allow him to work towards that goal.

 

[Kondor3]

...You are headed down a slippery slope...

Possibly.

...The old woman... A young man...

People with demonstrable long-term need could certainly be exempted from such voting restrictions, yes?

 

[Truth2Know]

...

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

You realize, of course, that I am playing Devil's Advocate here, do you not?

I half-believe in some of what I"m espousing, and remain unconvinced of the efficacy of other aspects of such tactics.

You are headed down a slippery slope. The old woman who lost her only son who died while in the service of his nation has not been addressed. She is to old and or to medically unfit to work. If she is unable to collect medicaid and food assistance she will go hungry and suffer or die from her illnesses. Hence, she will be on these benefits as long as she lives, which would disqualify her from voting. Now lets take another example. A young man is run over by an uninsured motorist and crippled for life. It is the kind of injury that will prevent him from ever have a sustainable living or even be able to care for himself without the help of welfare. At no fault of his own, he has lost his right to vote. He is being told that cell stem research is making great progress in finding a cure or great relief to his suffering. Problem is is that there are voters who want to elect officials who will prevent research because of objections to using cells from zygote or fetus cells. The disabled man will not be allowed to vote because he fits the identity of a person not eligible for voting. His purpose of voting is to push for action that would help him become able bodied and be able to get off of welfare, but your system will not allow him to work towards that goal.

You tell a very heart wrenching story. Now let’s slide down another slope.

Citizens increasingly decide to join the ranks of the professional poor who are content to live on what the government gives them. It’s not much, but it supplements the untaxed income received from selling drugs and cigarettes.

Illegal immigrants are welcomed by politicians because they swell the voter base that is easily manipulated. That non-citizens cannot legally vote is a joke to them since they are here illegally in the first place. With no voter ID required and states giving them driver licenses anyway, what’s to stop them from voting? They are happy to be here because, “Everything’s free in America!”

Politicians cater to the poor and illegals. It’s easy to spend public money. “Helping” the poor and oppressed keeps politicians in office, and, hey, they are just doing what the people (a.k.a. masses) voted them in to do.

The $18T+ national debt escalates rapidly. How to compensate for this? Why, reduce military expenditures, of course. Now that Iran has agreed to play nice with the world, more guns and stuff aren’t needed. ISIS? They’re just the JV team.

Then comes the economic collapse, followed by the military conquest.

The good news is that it’s 2050 and I’m not around to see it. The bad news? My kids, and yours, are.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

This is the thing.

Anyone who is refused the vote will be ignored. Okay, under the US system many people are already ignored.

Black people for example.

Black people have increased their share of the vote in the space of 20 years from 11.1 to 11.8%, whereas white people's share has been reduced massively. Hispanics have increased their share from 4.7% to 9.5%, probably due to larger numbers rather than voting.

Black people are starting to realise that their votes actually matter, to a certain extent, and the more they vote (they're now voting at similar levels to white people, almost) and therefore politicians have to take more note of them.

 

[Kondor3]

...

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

You realize, of course, that I am playing Devil's Advocate here, do you not?

I half-believe in some of what I"m espousing, and remain unconvinced of the efficacy of other aspects of such tactics.

You are headed down a slippery slope. The old woman who lost her only son who died while in the service of his nation has not been addressed. She is to old and or to medically unfit to work. If she is unable to collect medicaid and food assistance she will go hungry and suffer or die from her illnesses. Hence, she will be on these benefits as long as she lives, which would disqualify her from voting. Now lets take another example. A young man is run over by an uninsured motorist and crippled for life. It is the kind of injury that will prevent him from ever have a sustainable living or even be able to care for himself without the help of welfare. At no fault of his own, he has lost his right to vote. He is being told that cell stem research is making great progress in finding a cure or great relief to his suffering. Problem is is that there are voters who want to elect officials who will prevent research because of objections to using cells from zygote or fetus cells. The disabled man will not be allowed to vote because he fits the identity of a person not eligible for voting. His purpose of voting is to push for action that would help him become able bodied and be able to get off of welfare, but your system will not allow him to work towards that goal.

You tell a very heart wrenching story. Now let’s slide down another slope.

Citizens increasingly decide to join the ranks of the professional poor who are content to live on what the government gives them. It’s not much, but it supplements the untaxed income received from selling drugs and cigarettes.

Illegal immigrants are welcomed by politicians because they swell the voter base that is easily manipulated. That non-citizens cannot legally vote is a joke to them since they are here illegally in the first place. With no voter ID required and states giving them driver licenses anyway, what’s to stop them from voting? They are happy to be here because, “Everything’s free in America!”

Politicians cater to the poor and illegals. It’s easy to spend public money. “Helping” the poor and oppressed keeps politicians in office, and, hey, they are just doing what the people (a.k.a. masses) voted them in to do.

The $18T+ national debt escalates rapidly. How to compensate for this? Why, reduce military expenditures, of course. Now that Iran has agreed to play nice with the world, more guns and stuff aren’t needed. ISIS? They’re just the JV team.

Then comes the economic collapse, followed by the military conquest.

The good news is that it’s 2050 and I’m not around to see it. The bad news? My kids, and yours, are.

You paint a grim and believable picture.

I am always bemused (and/or amused) by the short-sighted-ness of Nanny-State advocates who cannot see (or do not care) where this is going over a span of decades.

Although I'm not convinced that 'military conquest' is likely in the foreseeable future, I'm far more ready to buy into the 'economic collapse' aspect of your predictions.

Liberals are stereotypically famous for their Save the Planet and Green Living themes and advocacy and practices, looking to the future and trying to change behaviors, because those present-day behaviors may yield a less savory and harsher environment...

It's a pity that they cannot take that same capacity to speculate upon the future, and turn the spotlight upon projections about finances, should present-day behaviors (the growing and sustaining of the Nanny State) continue unchecked, and conclude that those behaviors may yield a less savory and harsher environment.

Brilliance on the one hand (protection of the environment), and dumb-as-a-box-o-rox stupidity and short-sighted-ness (lack of financial responsibility) on the other.

To borrow a line from the stage play The King and I: "Is... a puzzlement" .

As usual, The Truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, between Democrat and Republic positions on the subject of Welfare, but neither side has the brains - or, more likely, the courage and the willpower - to cease their pandering and vote-whoring, and do what is needed, to reduce the Welfare Rolls and reverse the trend towards Nanny Statism.

 

[Kondor3]

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

This is the thing.

Anyone who is refused the vote will be ignored. Okay, under the US system many people are already ignored.

Black people for example.

Black people have increased their share of the vote in the space of 20 years from 11.1 to 11.8%, whereas white people's share has been reduced massively. Hispanics have increased their share from 4.7% to 9.5%, probably due to larger numbers rather than voting.

Black people are starting to realise that their votes actually matter, to a certain extent, and the more they vote (they're now voting at similar levels to white people, almost) and therefore politicians have to take more note of them.

Newsflash...

Black Folk now take a back seat to Hispanics, as the largest Minority Demographic in the Nation.

According to the 2010 US Census,Hispanics now account for 16% of the population, while Blacks now account for a mere 12%.

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Politicians will now begin to pay more attention to Hispanics than to Blacks, whose time as the dominant Minority Demographic has come to an end.

Just as well... after 140+ years, the old minority demographic dominance was getting a little tiresome, anyway.

And Hispanics - and politicians - are absorbing this data and acting upon it at a rapid and accelerating pace.

The Black demographic is yesterday's news - the Hispanic demographic is the wave of the future - enjoy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Newsflash...

Black Folk now take a back seat to Hispanics, as the largest Minority Demographic in the Nation.

According to the 2010 US Census,Hispanics now account for 16% of the population, while Blacks now account for a mere 12%.

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Politicians will now begin to pay more attention to Hispanics than to Blacks, whose time as the dominant Minority Demographic has come to an end.

Just as well... after 140+ years, the old minority demographic dominance was getting a little tiresome, anyway.

And Hispanics - and politicians - are absorbing this data and acting upon it at a rapid and accelerating pace.

The Black demographic is yesterday's news - the Hispanic demographic is the wave of the future - enjoy.

Black people didn't used to vote.

Blacks outvoted whites in 2012 the first time on record CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

This site says that black people turned out in larger numbers, per capita, than white people since 1968. Black people stopped voting. Not totally, but less black people voted. Why? Probably because they didn't feel anyone was listening to them. They've been increasing their vote in recent elections, and with Obama they came out in numbers, why? Because they think Obama listens to them because he's black.

 

[FA_Q2]

Here's a test question to see if you should vote: Are you a financial support or drain on America?

I posted a thread on this in May - Voting Privileges System Needed US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The thesis is that only those who financially support our country (in any give year) should be permitted to vote. This doesn't require any specific knowledge of American history or current events, but if you are making money and paying your taxes it means that you must know something.

I could get behind this ..............

Let's extend this one step farther, only those who work legally for the full 4 yr period get to vote in presidential elections.

Of course - remove the power of the vote from those that are poor and watch how they keep their rights intact.

Do you really understand what that means - you want an underclass that does not have the right to vote and by extension does not have any rights at all. Those will disappear pretty quickly as their 'masters' vote more shit away from them and over to themselves. Perhaps you can simply put chains on them and force them into servitude now - why bother with the interim...

No voting system is perfect. The problem I see with the current "everyone gets a vote" system is the threat of a large, non-contributing group of people being manipulated by politicians who give away public funds to buy votes. Can't buy enough votes with the current voter base? No problem. Bring in illegal immigrants and don't check voter ID's.

The problem you see with having the privilege to vote tied to income taxes paid is that those who don't pay taxes have no say in selecting their representatives. This will enable even more to be taken from the poor by the rich. (By the way, how do you get blood from a turnip?)

I'd rather entrust the future of this nation to those who have demonstrated the ability to work and pay taxes than to those who have proven they have no inclination to work while demanding more and more.

How do you get blood from a turnip?

Take away any influence they have in government and then take away any semblance of rights that they are guaranteed.

Or do you actually think that the poor have nothing to lose because that is a rather silly thing to state IMHO.

The way you protect from buying votes from the masses is NOT denying them access to the government - that is blatantly wrong - but rather denying the government the ability to buy those votes. IOW, we need to deal with the constitution that outlines those governmental powers and responsibilities - not try to allow the elitists to control the government. That does not end well.

 

[paddymurphy]

Here’s the problem: poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters:

If all income groups had voted evenly, Obama would have beaten McCain 55.2 percent to 42.7 percent, a net gain of 5.3 points relative to what actually happened. So no, poor government program beneficiaries don’t “all vote” or turn out in “massive numbers”.

 

[Montrovant]

A couple of points.

First, it is entirely possible to be a productive member of society without paying taxes, and do so legally. What about stay at home parents? Jobs which are based on something other than monetary recompense? Despite what some may think, such jobs do exist. As far as welfare/government assistance goes, that is a difficult case to make. Not every election will have an effect on those programs. Not every voter who makes use of such programs will vote for politicians who extend them. I understand the concept that those getting government assistance will vote for more of the same, but I both question how it would be implemented (what constitutes assistance? Do those who work and pay taxes yet also receive some form of assistance get to vote? Does this affect all elections of only certain ones? etc. etc.) and whether there's any chance it would pass constitutional muster.

I think that limiting rights should be difficult, not something done because a person doesn't like the current administration or policies of government. Not enough people agree with me to vote the candidates I want into office, therefore I should find a way to change the voting rules so those who agree with me are casting the majority of votes? Taking away the voting rights of people to get the 'proper' candidates into government? I can't get behind that, and as FA_Q2 said earlier, it's almost inevitably going to lead to the 'wrong' people getting into power and taking my own right to vote away at some point.

I'm also curious, if this is about 'the dole', about those who receive assistance or handouts voting to continue and expand those programs, how could such a change ever happen? If there are so many voting to keep their programs intact and expanded, wouldn't those same people vote against any change to voting rights promoted here? So wouldn't that require this change be made without a vote? Would this be implemented by executive order, would congress enact it (thereby proving they are not beholden to the so-called leeches, making the change itself pointless)? It seems to be a bit of a paradox. Either the people some of you are concerned about voting would have to vote away their own right to vote, or the politicians you are concerned are pandering to those voters would have to enact legislation which would go against the interests of those voters, showing that the politicians do not simply pander to them, contradicting the reason for the change in the first place.

 

[FA_Q2]

A couple of points.

First, it is entirely possible to be a productive member of society without paying taxes, and do so legally. What about stay at home parents? Jobs which are based on something other than monetary recompense? Despite what some may think, such jobs do exist. As far as welfare/government assistance goes, that is a difficult case to make. Not every election will have an effect on those programs. Not every voter who makes use of such programs will vote for politicians who extend them. I understand the concept that those getting government assistance will vote for more of the same, but I both question how it would be implemented (what constitutes assistance? Do those who work and pay taxes yet also receive some form of assistance get to vote? Does this affect all elections of only certain ones? etc. etc.) and whether there's any chance it would pass constitutional muster.

I think that limiting rights should be difficult, not something done because a person doesn't like the current administration or policies of government. Not enough people agree with me to vote the candidates I want into office, therefore I should find a way to change the voting rules so those who agree with me are casting the majority of votes? Taking away the voting rights of people to get the 'proper' candidates into government? I can't get behind that, and as FA_Q2 said earlier, it's almost inevitably going to lead to the 'wrong' people getting into power and taking my own right to vote away at some point.

I'm also curious, if this is about 'the dole', about those who receive assistance or handouts voting to continue and expand those programs, how could such a change ever happen? If there are so many voting to keep their programs intact and expanded, wouldn't those same people vote against any change to voting rights promoted here? So wouldn't that require this change be made without a vote? Would this be implemented by executive order, would congress enact it (thereby proving they are not beholden to the so-called leeches, making the change itself pointless)? It seems to be a bit of a paradox. Either the people some of you are concerned about voting would have to vote away their own right to vote, or the politicians you are concerned are pandering to those voters would have to enact legislation which would go against the interests of those voters, showing that the politicians do not simply pander to them, contradicting the reason for the change in the first place.

Another very good point.

Worth is NOT inexorably tied to material gains. I should have thought of that

As for your last paragraph, the ability to enact such measures is not necessarily ties to the ability to do so. As this is unlikely, it is more of an intellectual exercise than a reflection on weather or not such changes can be created through current, normal channels.

 

[Kondor3]

Here’s the problem: poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters:

If all income groups had voted evenly, Obama would have beaten McCain 55.2 percent to 42.7 percent, a net gain of 5.3 points relative to what actually happened. So no, poor government program beneficiaries don’t “all vote” or turn out in “massive numbers”.

Well, 13% is 13%... and can swing an election for the wrong reasons...yes?

 

[paddymurphy]

Here’s the problem: poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters:

If all income groups had voted evenly, Obama would have beaten McCain 55.2 percent to 42.7 percent, a net gain of 5.3 points relative to what actually happened. So no, poor government program beneficiaries don’t “all vote” or turn out in “massive numbers”.

Well, 13% is 13%... and can swing an election for the wrong reasons...yes?

First of all you illiterate fuck, only 6% of the voters were earning less than $15,000.00, not 13%.. Not all are on welfare. Second, who are you to say it is for the "wrong reasons"? The wrong reason to vote for a President is when he promises tax cuts; when he promises to end reproductive freedom; when he promises to repeal a law that provides health care to millions; when he promises to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; when he promises to reject an agreement with Iran when that rejection may lead to war. Those are folks voting for the wrong reason.

 

[Kondor3]

...First of all you illiterate fuck...

Calm yourself, Princess, or you'll soil your panties...

...only 6% of the voters were earning less than $15,000.00, not 13%...

I wasn't the one who served-up the 13% figure, if you'll calm yourself long enough to go back and look, I was merely responding to it.

Frankly, I don't care whether it's 13% or 6% - the observation stands.

...Not all are on welfare...

My own participation here has been focused upon those who ARE on welfare (SNAP, TANF and/or Medicaid).

You can do what you like with the rest; they aren't a factor in the point I was making, about considering the restricting of the vote to those NOT on welfare.

...Second, who are you to say it is for the "wrong reasons"?...

I am me.

An American citizen.

Positing that Welfare Queens and Kings are likely to vote for the candidate(s) most likely to sustain them in their benefits and to perpetuate and expand Nanny Statism.

Positing that such an approach is financially unhealthy and, societally, and at-large, on the macro level, unhealthy for the future of the Republic and its People.

And, if the above two criteria are found to be largely true, then, in turn, positing that this constitutes voting for the wrong reasons.

Why?

Who else do I have to be, to offer-up a Citizen's Opinion in such matters?

And, while we're at it, who are you, to attempt to suppress my opinion?

...The wrong reason to vote for a President is when he promises...

Non sequitur.

But thank you for your feedback.

 

[paddymurphy]

...First of all you illiterate fuck...

Calm yourself, Princess, or you'll soil your panties...

...only 6% of the voters were earning less than $15,000.00, not 13%...

I wasn't the one who served-up the 13% figure, if you'll calm yourself long enough to go back and look, I was merely responding to it.

Frankly, I don't care whether it's 13% or 6% - the observation stands.

...Not all are on welfare...

My own participation here has been focused upon those who ARE on welfare (SNAP, TANF and/or Medicaid).

You can do what you like with the rest; they aren't a factor in the point I was making, about considering the restricting of the vote to those NOT on welfare.

...Second, who are you to say it is for the "wrong reasons"?...

I am me.

An American citizen.

Positing that Welfare Queens and Kings are likely to vote for the candidate(s) most likely to sustain them in their benefits and to perpetuate and expand Nanny Statism.

Positing that such an approach is financially unhealthy and, societally, and at-large, on the macro level, unhealthy for the future of the Republic and its People.

And, if the above two criteria are found to be largely true, then, in turn, positing that this constitutes voting for the wrong reasons.

Why?

Who else do I have to be, to offer-up a Citizen's Opinion in such matters?

And, while we're at it, who are you, to attempt to suppress my opinion?

...The wrong reason to vote for a President is when he promises...

Non sequitur.

But thank you for your feedback.

Had you been able to understand the English language, which still seems to puzzle you, the 13% number you suggested could have "swung" the election were not voters. Those who make less than 15k constituted only 6% of those voting. Poor people vote far less than those in the middle class and upper class. Many people now on MA actually work and pay taxes. Many who receive food stamps work and pay taxes. Some are the wives and children of servicemen. So, while hubby is off risking his life for his nation, you would prevent wifey from voting. Frankly, she deserves a vote more than you do.

You single out poor people, a disproportionate number of whom are black, for being denied a basic, human right; the right to participate in their own governance. You have ignored that fact that there are other people who vote from pure self interest. You, for example, vote for those who will lower your taxes by not providing assistance to anyone less fortunate than you. You have identified only one group and falsely claimed, without any evidence to support it, that they vote solely for candidates that will provide them with continued or more government assistance. As for suppressing your opinion, you mistake pointing out the idiocy of what you propose for suppressing it. You are no less free to express your stupid ideas now, after I have destroyed them, than you were when you first decided to demonstrate to those who read this message board what a fucking moron you are.

 

[Kondor3]

...Had you been able to understand the English language, which still seems to puzzle you, the 13% number you suggested could have "swung" the election were not voters. Those who make less than 15k constituted only 6% of those voting...

13%... 6%... whatever... it's more than a percentage-point, and therefore eligible for scrutiny.

...Poor people vote far less than those in the middle class and upper class...

Doesn't matter. Nobody should be allowed to vote for a candidate because they promise to sustain and expand Nanny State benefits.

...Many people now on MA actually work and pay taxes. Many who receive food stamps work and pay taxes. Some are the wives and children of servicemen. So, while hubby is off risking his life for his nation, you would prevent wifey from voting. Frankly, she deserves a vote more than you do...

I have long-since stated that only Chronic Layabouts would qualify. Folks on long-term disability, the working poor, families of service-folk, etc., would not be thus barred.

...You single out poor people...

I single-out Perpetual Welfare Receivers, whom I (and a great many other Americans) do not want voting for a candidate simply because the candidate promises to retain and even expand their benefits.

...a disproportionate number of whom are black...

The law is color blind.

Don't you Liberals make a great show of telling the rest of us that the largest number of folks on Food Stamps, etc., are actually White?

Well, then, this affects Whites even more than it affects Blacks, yes?

Or so logic would suggest.

Epic Fail.

...for being denied a basic, human right; the right to participate in their own governance...

Voting is not a basic human right.

It is a political right.

Political rights are what The People say they are.

And, if We The People say that those who are On-the-Dole are not to be entrusted with the vote, for fear that they will vote for Vote-Panders and Vote-Whores who promise to give them free bread and circuses, well, then, they are not to be entrusted with that political right, until they get their asses OFF the Dole, yes?

...You have ignored that fact that there are other people who vote from pure self interest...

Yes. But they are Net Contributors to the System, not Net Drainers.

...As for suppressing your opinion, you mistake pointing out the idiocy of what you propose for suppressing it. You are no less free to express your stupid ideas now, after I have destroyed them, than you were when you first decided to demonstrate to those who read this message board what a fucking moron you are.

Gotta love this Self-Declared Victory shit from the youngsters. Isn't it cute? Baby's first foul-mouthed delusional non-victory. Sumfin' to put in the Baby Book. Soooo proud!

 

[Truth2Know]

...First of all you illiterate fuck...

Calm yourself, Princess, or you'll soil your panties...

...only 6% of the voters were earning less than $15,000.00, not 13%...

I wasn't the one who served-up the 13% figure, if you'll calm yourself long enough to go back and look, I was merely responding to it.

Frankly, I don't care whether it's 13% or 6% - the observation stands.

...Not all are on welfare...

My own participation here has been focused upon those who ARE on welfare (SNAP, TANF and/or Medicaid).

You can do what you like with the rest; they aren't a factor in the point I was making, about considering the restricting of the vote to those NOT on welfare.

...Second, who are you to say it is for the "wrong reasons"?...

I am me.

An American citizen.

Positing that Welfare Queens and Kings are likely to vote for the candidate(s) most likely to sustain them in their benefits and to perpetuate and expand Nanny Statism.

Positing that such an approach is financially unhealthy and, societally, and at-large, on the macro level, unhealthy for the future of the Republic and its People.

And, if the above two criteria are found to be largely true, then, in turn, positing that this constitutes voting for the wrong reasons.

Why?

Who else do I have to be, to offer-up a Citizen's Opinion in such matters?

And, while we're at it, who are you, to attempt to suppress my opinion?

...The wrong reason to vote for a President is when he promises...

Non sequitur.

But thank you for your feedback.

Had you been able to understand the English language, which still seems to puzzle you, the 13% number you suggested could have "swung" the election were not voters. Those who make less than 15k constituted only 6% of those voting. Poor people vote far less than those in the middle class and upper class. Many people now on MA actually work and pay taxes. Many who receive food stamps work and pay taxes. Some are the wives and children of servicemen. So, while hubby is off risking his life for his nation, you would prevent wifey from voting. Frankly, she deserves a vote more than you do.

You single out poor people, a disproportionate number of whom are black, for being denied a basic, human right; the right to participate in their own governance. You have ignored that fact that there are other people who vote from pure self interest. You, for example, vote for those who will lower your taxes by not providing assistance to anyone less fortunate than you. You have identified only one group and falsely claimed, without any evidence to support it, that they vote solely for candidates that will provide them with continued or more government assistance. As for suppressing your opinion, you mistake pointing out the idiocy of what you propose for suppressing it. You are no less free to express your stupid ideas now, after I have destroyed them, than you were when you first decided to demonstrate to those who read this message board what a fucking moron you are.

You seem to like numbers, so let's take a look at a few real numbers. (Here's a tip: Whenever you see a percentage, dig around to understand what it really means. Percentages can be very misleading.)

In 2009 (recent enough for this discussion), the US Census Bureau shows 84,238,000 people with an annual income of less than $10,000. There were 11,187,000 people listed as black, 13.3% of the total that earned less than $10K. This is about the same percentage in the general population, so your "disproportionate number of whom are black" assertion is inaccurate.

The same source puts the number of adults at 242,168,000. This means that those earning less $10K comprise 34% of the voting population. At the other end of the spectrum, those earning $150K or more total 5,024,000, or 2.1% of eligible voters. They are well outnumbered by the under $10K folks. But how many of each group really head to the polls? Glad you asked:

It would only take 6% of the under $10K voters to turnout to equal the total number over $150K voters if ALL of the higher income folks turned out. With presidential year under $10K turnout about 45%, it's clear that the low income voters are the dominant force compared to the highest income earners.

The problem with the "everyone gets one vote, and only one vote" system is painfully clear for anyone willing to acknowledge the truth. Unfortunately, this problem is even worse than I initially thought.

Links used in this analysis: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0705.pdf
Why the Voting Gap Matters Demos

 

[Montrovant]

...Had you been able to understand the English language, which still seems to puzzle you, the 13% number you suggested could have "swung" the election were not voters. Those who make less than 15k constituted only 6% of those voting...

13%... 6%... whatever... it's more than a percentage-point, and therefore eligible for scrutiny.

...Poor people vote far less than those in the middle class and upper class...

Doesn't matter. Nobody should be allowed to vote for a candidate because they promise to sustain and expand Nanny State benefits.

...Many people now on MA actually work and pay taxes. Many who receive food stamps work and pay taxes. Some are the wives and children of servicemen. So, while hubby is off risking his life for his nation, you would prevent wifey from voting. Frankly, she deserves a vote more than you do...

I have long-since stated that only Chronic Layabouts would qualify. Folks on long-term disability, the working poor, families of service-folk, etc., would not be thus barred.

...You single out poor people...

I single-out Perpetual Welfare Receivers, whom I (and a great many other Americans) do not want voting for a candidate simply because the candidate promises to retain and even expand their benefits.

...a disproportionate number of whom are black...

The law is color blind.

Don't you Liberals make a great show of telling the rest of us that the largest number of folks on Food Stamps, etc., are actually White?

Well, then, this affects Whites even more than it affects Blacks, yes?

Or so logic would suggest.

Epic Fail.

...for being denied a basic, human right; the right to participate in their own governance...

Voting is not a basic human right.

It is a political right.

Political rights are what The People say they are.

And, if We The People say that those who are On-the-Dole are not to be entrusted with the vote, for fear that they will vote for Vote-Panders and Vote-Whores who promise to give them free bread and circuses, well, then, they are not to be entrusted with that political right, until they get their asses OFF the Dole, yes?

...You have ignored that fact that there are other people who vote from pure self interest...

Yes. But they are Net Contributors to the System, not Net Drainers.

...As for suppressing your opinion, you mistake pointing out the idiocy of what you propose for suppressing it. You are no less free to express your stupid ideas now, after I have destroyed them, than you were when you first decided to demonstrate to those who read this message board what a fucking moron you are.

Gotta love this Self-Declared Victory shit from the youngsters. Isn't it cute? Baby's first foul-mouthed delusional non-victory. Sumfin' to put in the Baby Book. Soooo proud!

I wonder about the sentence I put in bold. You think that why a person votes for a candidate should be a determining factor in whether they vote? OK, let's go with that. How do you determine why someone votes for a candidate? Your solution is to assume that anyone who is on welfare of whichever sort you decide will be voting based on continuation or expansion of those benefits, and therefore cannot vote. However, this both disenfranchises welfare recipients who vote for reasons other than extending their benefits and ignores non-welfare recipients who vote based on extending or expanding government benefits they may receive. You have countered this last part by pointing out that those you wish to strip of their voting rights are 'Net Drainers' and those who you would allow to retain voting rights are 'Net Contributors'. You make this argument without defining those terms nor providing any evidence that it is true.

This kind of vague argument could easily lead to all kinds of voting restrictions. If you make less than a certain amount, you are a Net Drainer and so cannot vote. If you pay less than a certain amount in federal taxes, Net Drainer and cannot vote. Not married, no children? Net Drainer, cannot vote.

As I pointed out previously, making money is not the only indication that someone works, nor is employment the only way someone can be considered contributing to society. What your argument appears to be is one in which you would restrict the voting rights of people who vote for reasons you disapprove of. That is not a strong argument for restricting rights. Rather than trying to do so, perhaps the more ethical solution would be to try and educate people and get them to vote for candidates you feel are superior.

And again, also pointed out earlier, if enough of the people feel that voting for bread and circuses is a problem, instead of restricting voting rights, why don't those people simply vote better candidates into office?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

Speaking of civics lessons, have you ever had one? Advocating testing as a means of access to franchise has been roundly dismissed. Why would you erode a citizen's right to vote?