The Right to Vote

[Azazello1313]

I think it's a bad idea to require citizens to be net taxpayers to be able to vote. but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to requiring passage of some sort of basic civics test, similar to what immigrants applying for citizenship have to pass.

[bpwallace49]

I think it's a bad idea to require citizens to be net taxpayers to be able to vote. but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to requiring passage of some sort of basic civics test, similar to what immigrants applying for citizenship have to pass.

 

That I would agree with.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I think it's a bad idea to require citizens to be net taxpayers to be able to vote. but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to requiring passage of some sort of basic civics test, similar to what immigrants applying for citizenship have to pass.

most Americans cant pass the citizenship test

[untateve]

No, but I am implying if you aren't a net tax payer and there is little likelihood that your taxes are going to increase you are much more likely to vote for politicians that are proposing to spend other people's money. I think we limited voting to net tax payers we would have a much smaller government, and would be in much better shape than we are today.

 

I think you are wrong. Really, really wrong.

[Perchoutofwater]

I think you are wrong. Really, really wrong.

 

Obviously you are entitled to that opinion. You'll forgive me if I side with Mr. Franklin on this.

[gbpfan1231]

I think you are wrong. Really, really wrong.

Sorry to pile on but I agree.

[Deathpig]

He is implying it is OK for them to do so.

 

perch, maybe we need to re-instate the different values during slavery. What was it . . . 4/7th of a slave (or non-net tax payer in your case) vote should count?

 

perch should the census only count net taxpayers, or human beings?

 

The 3/5 compromise you are referring to had nothing to do with suffrage. It was a compromise on non-free, non-Indian population in the States as it related to tax appropriation and calculating the State's seats in the House of Representatives. The southern states wanted their slave population counted for these purposes and the northern states didn't. This compromise, and the Connecticut compromise, are (more or less) how we backed into the concept of a two-body Congress-- each state, regardless of size, having two votes in the higher body (favoring small states like Connecticut) and each state having votes based on population (modified by the 3/5 compromise-- favoring larger southern states) in the lower body.

 

The amusing thing about the structure of the House and Senate is that, at the founding, the primary contention was between the states. The concepts that went into the construction of Congress seem to make much less sense now that the States aren't arguing between each other as much as borderless political constructs (read: Republicans and Democrats) are.

 

I actually have little problem requiring someone to be a tax payer to have a vote on members of the House of Representatives (nominally, the place where the rubber hits the road on federal spending). I don't know that it's as relevant (or, as pointed out, seemingly punitive) on Senators or Presidential elections.

[untateve]

Obviously you are entitled to that opinion. You'll forgive me if I side with Mr. Franklin on this.

 

Do you think that people who pay taxes don't vote themselves $$? Do you think politicians don't work really hard for special earmarks/projects/etc for their district and then run on these 'successes'?

[bushwacked]

You'll forgive me if I side with Mr. Franklin on this.

 

Wrong again.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Obviously you are entitled to that opinion. You'll forgive me if I side with Mr. Franklin on this.

 

 

Wrong again.

yup

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm more concerned with the obligation to be informed and exercise the franchise seriously and responsibly. I am less troubled by the fact that whatever percentage of eligible people don't vote than I am by the fact that an exponentially greater percentage of people (some who vote, some who don't) don't know dick about american civics and history. do I wish more clueless people exercised their right to vote? no, I can't really say that I do.

I don't see why a person should vote if they think all the candidates are a$$hats. Say the Democrat is in favor of abortion on demand for all women of whatever age, which the voter virulently opposes and the Republican is in favor of open weapons carry for everyone everywhere, which the voter also virulently opposes. How is that voter supposed to vote if they are compelled to?

 

Much better is the Nevada option for "none of these candidates".

[Ursa Majoris]

The only other guy is Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel, but most people would rather a rapist or a murderer than someone from the Silly Party (unless you're from Luton).

 

Utterly brilliant. Ever heard the whole skit?

[Azazello1313]

most Americans cant pass the citizenship test

 

and that is exactly the problem.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I don't see why a person should vote if they think all the candidates are a$$hats. Say the Democrat is in favor of abortion on demand for all women of whatever age, which the voter virulently opposes and the Republican is in favor of open weapons carry for everyone everywhere, which the voter also virulently opposes. How is that voter supposed to vote if they are compelled to?

 

+1

 

I brought this topic up because my wife was really torn about voting this year. She's not one to do a ton of research on every single candidate, but in her opinion, she couldn't stomach voting for anyone this year....not after all the slandering ads that each side ran against one another.

 

her immediate impulse was that neither candidate deserved her vote after this past month...they are both slimey name-callers that would rather bash the other than stand-up and state what they beleived in. I told her it was very important for her to vote, for her to have a say.....but I couldn't help beleive that she was right: if she thinks (in her admittedly limited opinion) that both suck, and she knows little about either's platform....why cast a vote that could put the poorer choice in office?

[SEC=UGA]

Groups who should be excluded from voting:

College students (especially the 35 year old variety)

People under 25 (yeah, yeah, at 18 you can got to war, yada, yada, yada... Back in the day, the Revolutionary, Civil wars, they had 12 year old boys on the battle field, they weren't and should not have been allowed to vote...)

People who are not US citizens (but they live in our communities and pay taxes... F'em)

People who have been a US citizen for less than 11 years (I'll give these people the right to vote on their 18th anniversary of being in the US legally. & years to get citizenship, 11 years after that before you can vote)

Single wimmen with more than one child Wimmen

Asians who have more than 3 moving violations over the course of 5 years... If you don't know how to drive appropriately, you are not allowed to vote.

Felons... I don't care if they've served their time or not. You get pinched for a felony, no vote for you!!!

Cashiers or cooks at fast food restaurants over the age of 18.

Dead people

People who go to church more than once per week

People who have handled reptiles while at church

People who have ever spoken in tongues while at church

People who close their eyes and sway back and forth, clapping their hands, with that gay look on their face, to the gay rock, gospel songs at church

The Jewish Guys with the long side burns... I believe they are called Hasidic.

Muslims that have ever refused to allow a dog in their cab or in their gas station

Muslims that have ever refused to provide transport in their cab to a person due to drunkeness or possession of an alcoholic beverage

People with more than 1 wife... Mormons, I'm looking in your direction...

Anyone that has ever jumped off of anything "for fun"

Anyone that has ever said "watch this" and was admitted to the hospital for severe injuries after that statement

Moneymakers (though I've probably covered him already)

Florida Gator fans

People who have a PHD in a Liberal Art

Gay people who paint themselves like rainbows

Anyone who believes wind and solar power are the best alternatives to fix our reliance on fossil fuel power

 

I'll think of some more, I'm certain.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Groups who should be excluded from voting:

Asians who have more than 3 moving violations over the course of 5 years... If you don't know how to drive appropriately, you are not allowed to vote.

People who go to church more than once per week

People who close their eyes and sway back and forth, clapping their hands, with that gay look on their face, to the gay rock, gospel songs at church

The Jewish Guys with the long side burns... I believe they are called Hasidic.

Anyone that has ever said "watch this" and was admitted to the hospital for severe injuries after that statement

Moneymakers (though I've probably covered him already)

Gay people who paint themselves like rainbows

 

[cre8tiff]

Groups who should be excluded from voting:

College students (especially the 35 year old variety)

People under 25 (yeah, yeah, at 18 you can got to war, yada, yada, yada... Back in the day, the Revolutionary, Civil wars, they had 12 year old boys on the battle field, they weren't and should not have been allowed to vote...)

People who are not US citizens (but they live in our communities and pay taxes... F'em)

People who have been a US citizen for less than 11 years (I'll give these people the right to vote on their 18th anniversary of being in the US legally. & years to get citizenship, 11 years after that before you can vote)

Single wimmen with more than one child Wimmen

Asians who have more than 3 moving violations over the course of 5 years... If you don't know how to drive appropriately, you are not allowed to vote.

Felons... I don't care if they've served their time or not. You get pinched for a felony, no vote for you!!!

Cashiers or cooks at fast food restaurants over the age of 18.

Dead people

People who go to church more than once per week

People who have handled reptiles while at church

People who have ever spoken in tongues while at church

People who close their eyes and sway back and forth, clapping their hands, with that gay look on their face, to the gay rock, gospel songs at church

The Jewish Guys with the long side burns... I believe they are called Hasidic.

Muslims that have ever refused to allow a dog in their cab or in their gas station

Muslims that have ever refused to provide transport in their cab to a person due to drunkeness or possession of an alcoholic beverage

People with more than 1 wife... Mormons, I'm looking in your direction...

Anyone that has ever jumped off of anything "for fun"

Anyone that has ever said "watch this" and was admitted to the hospital for severe injuries after that statement

Moneymakers (though I've probably covered him already)

Florida Gator fans

People who have a PHD in a Liberal Art

Gay people who paint themselves like rainbows

Anyone who believes wind and solar power are the best alternatives to fix our reliance on fossil fuel power

 

I'll think of some more, I'm certain.

 

How did TimC get SEC=UGA's login?

[Ursa Majoris]

+1

 

I brought this topic up because my wife was really torn about voting this year. She's not one to do a ton of research on every single candidate, but in her opinion, she couldn't stomach voting for anyone this year....not after all the slandering ads that each side ran against one another.

 

her immediate impulse was that neither candidate deserved her vote after this past month...they are both slimey name-callers that would rather bash the other than stand-up and state what they beleived in. I told her it was very important for her to vote, for her to have a say.....but I couldn't help beleive that she was right: if she thinks (in her admittedly limited opinion) that both suck, and she knows little about either's platform....why cast a vote that could put the poorer choice in office?

What if they gave an election and no-one came?

 

(With apologies to the 60s anti-war film)

[Perchoutofwater]

What if they gave an election and no-one came?

 

(With apologies to the 60s anti-war film)

 

Someone is always going to be pissed off enough to come.

[gbpfan1231]

Someone is always going to be pissed off enough to come.

 

Some quicker than others.

[TimC]

How did TimC get SEC=UGA's login?

 

Ummm, we don't paint ourselves. He painted me and I painted him. Gawd-danged Bulldog posting my personal pics. :madandsad:

[TimC]

Anyways, let's just make it simple and say only the rich can vote. If you make less than $250,000, sucks to be you. Try harder next time.

[SEC=UGA]

Anyways, let's just make it simple and say only the rich can vote. If you make less than $250,000, sucks to be you. Try harder next time.

 

We were founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, not Hindu

[Kid Cid]

+1

 

I brought this topic up because my wife was really torn about voting this year. She's not one to do a ton of research on every single candidate, but in her opinion, she couldn't stomach voting for anyone this year....not after all the slandering ads that each side ran against one another.

 

her immediate impulse was that neither candidate deserved her vote after this past month...they are both slimey name-callers that would rather bash the other than stand-up and state what they beleived in. I told her it was very important for her to vote, for her to have a say.....but I couldn't help beleive that she was right: if she thinks (in her admittedly limited opinion) that both suck, and she knows little about either's platform....why cast a vote that could put the poorer choice in office?

Here is the salient point that everyone seems to be missing. You are not required to vote for anyone listed on the ballot. You may freely vote for any person that you feel is qualified for the position. It is called a write in vote. The American public has been sold a bill of goods that tricked them into believing that they must voted for either a Democrat or Republican. They do not have to. I honestly wish that more people would exercise their right to write in a candidate. I don't care if their choice didn't wine the election but what kind of message would it send to the politicians if 64% of the people that voted didn't vote for any candidate on the ballot?

[rajncajn]

Here is the salient point that everyone seems to be missing. You are not required to vote for anyone listed on the ballot. You may freely vote for any person that you feel is qualified for the position. It is called a write in vote. The American public has been sold a bill of goods that tricked them into believing that they must voted for either a Democrat or Republican. They do not have to. I honestly wish that more people would exercise their right to write in a candidate. I don't care if their choice didn't wine the election but what kind of message would it send to the politicians if 64% of the people that voted didn't vote for any candidate on the ballot?

It's a pipe dream and wouldn't change a damn thing. They're content knowing that you didn't vote for the other candidate.