It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In Order To Save America, We Must Legally Prevent Oblivious People From Voting
page: 2share:
Metal, I don't understand you. Not too long ago, you were saying you weren't going to vote
(in this thread you started). Ironically, in that very thread, I tried to convince
you to vote anyway. Less than 2 months later, you've concluded that only certain citizens should be allowed to vote? Of course, I'm assuming that
conveniently includes citizens like yourself, who don't even want to vote (going by your previous words)...
There are many reasons why that idea sucks. I'll spare most of them and focus on this: We're supposed to be a representative democracy. We even have the audacity to claim we're the "leader of the free world". Yet now we're debating if our own citizens of adult age should be allowed to vote? How is it democracy if we intentionally strip adult citizens of their rights to vote? I'm not talking criminals; we're talking about normal, law abiding citizens (though even criminals should be allowed to vote once they've done their time & repaid their debts to society).
Do you remember why the voting age was reduced from 21yrs old to 18yrs old? A large part of it was because people were old enough to be drafted into war & prosecuted as adults, but weren't old enough to have a say in politics. And surely you remember that whole "No taxation without representation" argument that some guys used during the country's founding?
You'd basically be creating a 2-tiered system. One class of adult citizens would decide the local, federal, and State referendums and elections; while the other class of adults would simply have to obey the laws they had no say in. I thought you were a libertarian? How does that match up with libertarianism? That sounds more like an oligarchy or feudalism than democracy, especially if it's members of the establishment who'd decide the criteria for who gets to vote. Because you can guarantee the criteria would always allow rich people, insiders, and the such to vote.
(note: And for the record, the US already had something like this up until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The criteria then was based on race, among other things. And before that law passed, a major criteria was also based on things like paying poll taxes to qualify for voting. It literally took the passage of the 24th Amendment in 1964 to end that practice. In other words, the establishment has tried to keep poor citizens and "social undesirables" from voting for a long time. The wording and rationalizations may change, but their intentions are always the same: to prevent their own votes from being watered down and overridden by the masses.)
There are many reasons why that idea sucks. I'll spare most of them and focus on this: We're supposed to be a representative democracy. We even have the audacity to claim we're the "leader of the free world". Yet now we're debating if our own citizens of adult age should be allowed to vote? How is it democracy if we intentionally strip adult citizens of their rights to vote? I'm not talking criminals; we're talking about normal, law abiding citizens (though even criminals should be allowed to vote once they've done their time & repaid their debts to society).
Do you remember why the voting age was reduced from 21yrs old to 18yrs old? A large part of it was because people were old enough to be drafted into war & prosecuted as adults, but weren't old enough to have a say in politics. And surely you remember that whole "No taxation without representation" argument that some guys used during the country's founding?
You'd basically be creating a 2-tiered system. One class of adult citizens would decide the local, federal, and State referendums and elections; while the other class of adults would simply have to obey the laws they had no say in. I thought you were a libertarian? How does that match up with libertarianism? That sounds more like an oligarchy or feudalism than democracy, especially if it's members of the establishment who'd decide the criteria for who gets to vote. Because you can guarantee the criteria would always allow rich people, insiders, and the such to vote.
(note: And for the record, the US already had something like this up until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The criteria then was based on race, among other things. And before that law passed, a major criteria was also based on things like paying poll taxes to qualify for voting. It literally took the passage of the 24th Amendment in 1964 to end that practice. In other words, the establishment has tried to keep poor citizens and "social undesirables" from voting for a long time. The wording and rationalizations may change, but their intentions are always the same: to prevent their own votes from being watered down and overridden by the masses.)
a reply to: Metallicus
I might value the opinion of a person with "skin in the game" over a person who didn't. But that is not necessarily the case. Just look at the "learned" people here who still vote for/support ideologies that would make most people cringe.
The problem is, even if this was implemented, the election process is filtered by the Electoral College.
I don't think it would make a difference.
All it would do, would be to limit a right. It would make more laws, make more regulations, and make government determine your worth as a citizen.
I already dislike/distrust government. No way in hell I would want to grant them more authority.
I might value the opinion of a person with "skin in the game" over a person who didn't. But that is not necessarily the case. Just look at the "learned" people here who still vote for/support ideologies that would make most people cringe.
The problem is, even if this was implemented, the election process is filtered by the Electoral College.
I don't think it would make a difference.
All it would do, would be to limit a right. It would make more laws, make more regulations, and make government determine your worth as a citizen.
I already dislike/distrust government. No way in hell I would want to grant them more authority.
a reply to: Metallicus
I had an idea along those lines linked to tax reform. Our Founders had the idea of "No taxation without representation!" Well what about no representation without taxation?
Now, I know that people would say, "Well we're all taxed a million different ways so long as you spend some money." But to fix that in ways that would guarantee that everyone puts out to the government in very tangible ways at tax time, I think tax reform ought to be fixed to either a flat rate or fixed national sales tax/consumption tax.
Now, in order to help those who claim poverty, you can duck your liability up to a certain level of income, but part of doing so comes with also shedding the franchise. In order to reclaim your voting rights, you simply have to show that you've rejoined the taxpaying public for one election cycle (this would be to prevent people from simply paying taxes only on election years and not on every other year).
I know some will say that it's not fair to force people to either eat or pay taxes so they can vote, but the reality is that if you are actually in that boat, the odds are that you mostly drawing your living from tax dollars more than you are from money you have earned anyhow and that compromises your vote just as much as any politician who is bought by his big money donors.
I had an idea along those lines linked to tax reform. Our Founders had the idea of "No taxation without representation!" Well what about no representation without taxation?
Now, I know that people would say, "Well we're all taxed a million different ways so long as you spend some money." But to fix that in ways that would guarantee that everyone puts out to the government in very tangible ways at tax time, I think tax reform ought to be fixed to either a flat rate or fixed national sales tax/consumption tax.
Now, in order to help those who claim poverty, you can duck your liability up to a certain level of income, but part of doing so comes with also shedding the franchise. In order to reclaim your voting rights, you simply have to show that you've rejoined the taxpaying public for one election cycle (this would be to prevent people from simply paying taxes only on election years and not on every other year).
I know some will say that it's not fair to force people to either eat or pay taxes so they can vote, but the reality is that if you are actually in that boat, the odds are that you mostly drawing your living from tax dollars more than you are from money you have earned anyhow and that compromises your vote just as much as any politician who is bought by his big money donors.
a reply to: enlightenedservant
No (hahaha) we can agree.
I like the OP and started my post agreeing or at least trying to agree. But the more I thought about it, the more I saw wrong with this idea.
Personally, I don't even like the idea that former felons cannot vote.
Once you start being selective with rights, then it stops being a right and it becomes a privilege granted by the government.
No (hahaha) we can agree.
I like the OP and started my post agreeing or at least trying to agree. But the more I thought about it, the more I saw wrong with this idea.
Personally, I don't even like the idea that former felons cannot vote.
Once you start being selective with rights, then it stops being a right and it becomes a privilege granted by the government.
originally posted by: Edumakated
Everyone should not be able to vote.
I believe everyone should have to pass a basic civics test like the one we require immigrants to pass to become US Citizens. If immigrants have to know this stuff, shouldn't citizens?
US Citizenship Test
I think it would fix a lot of problems.
I agree with this, to a degree. It should be a requirement that you understand WTF basic civics entails before being able to participate. You don't need to be a scholar on every facet, but general knowledge would be nice to require. There are way too many people, young & old alike, who aren't even sure what "civic duty" even means. That should be alarming.
edit on 3/9/2016 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)
a reply to: DBCowboy
Felons are barred because they didn't respect someone else's rights. How do you expect someone who has so little respect for rights that they violated the rights of another to make good decisions on who will represent them?
In other words, what sort of politician would a thief elect to represent his or her wishes?
Felons are barred because they didn't respect someone else's rights. How do you expect someone who has so little respect for rights that they violated the rights of another to make good decisions on who will represent them?
In other words, what sort of politician would a thief elect to represent his or her wishes?
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy
Felons are barred because they didn't respect someone else's rights. How do you expect someone who has so little respect for rights that they violated the rights of another to make good decisions on who will represent them?
In other words, what sort of politician would a thief elect to represent his or her wishes?
Just curious:
Would you take the same stance with a felon and the 2nd amendment?
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy
Felons are barred because they didn't respect someone else's rights. How do you expect someone who has so little respect for rights that they violated the rights of another to make good decisions on who will represent them?
In other words, what sort of politician would a thief elect to represent his or her wishes?
But felons have paid their dues. They served their time.
Basically, it's a life-sentence then for anyone who commits a crime.
You cannot own a firearm, you cannot vote.
I'd say that was a denial of rights to someone who has paid heir debt to society.
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: introvert
Or Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion...
Not to mention the millions of felons who committed victimless crimes.
Exactly.
We have to be careful when we begin to limit rights. It some circumstances, we may have to. That's a discussion we have to have.
But in the grand scheme of things, having a right to vote is a right we can guarantee to all people, regardless of their past transgressions.
a reply to: DBCowboy
Under our system, if you commit a crime, and you are found guilty by a jury of your peers, you must make restitution. Once you have served your time, paid your fines and paid your restitution, the matter should be closed. That's not how it works, of course. There are a lot of people who want a world of perpetual punishment to assuage their own fear, or sense of retribution. People are basically dumb animals. For most -- no amount of rehabilitation will ever be enough. So we release men and women from prisons and jails, place stipulations on their travel, exclude them from renting or working near us, and generally make it impossible for them to reintegrate into society. When they give up and turn again to crime, we use their recidivism to justify our satanic mandate, and call ourselves "free people." Mostly, we are amoral chicken#s, unwilling to practice what we preach because we are scarred. We forget that people whom we reject and deny representation to have no incentive to join us. In fact -- they have every motivation to see us destroyed.
Hence you get criminals like the original signers of the Declaration of Independence, who waged open revolt against their rightful authorities. You get economic terrorism, like the Boston Tea Party. We cover safely behind security doors, armed to the teeth and plugged in to junk food media. We don't see the Framers as criminals or terrorists. And 200 years of history has proven that version of history "correct." Still -- we forget what happens when we marginalize and disenfranchise others to preserve our sense of safety and superiority. If we make it impossible for them to buy in, they will eventually opt-out.
To the detriment of everyone.
Under our system, if you commit a crime, and you are found guilty by a jury of your peers, you must make restitution. Once you have served your time, paid your fines and paid your restitution, the matter should be closed. That's not how it works, of course. There are a lot of people who want a world of perpetual punishment to assuage their own fear, or sense of retribution. People are basically dumb animals. For most -- no amount of rehabilitation will ever be enough. So we release men and women from prisons and jails, place stipulations on their travel, exclude them from renting or working near us, and generally make it impossible for them to reintegrate into society. When they give up and turn again to crime, we use their recidivism to justify our satanic mandate, and call ourselves "free people." Mostly, we are amoral chicken#s, unwilling to practice what we preach because we are scarred. We forget that people whom we reject and deny representation to have no incentive to join us. In fact -- they have every motivation to see us destroyed.
Hence you get criminals like the original signers of the Declaration of Independence, who waged open revolt against their rightful authorities. You get economic terrorism, like the Boston Tea Party. We cover safely behind security doors, armed to the teeth and plugged in to junk food media. We don't see the Framers as criminals or terrorists. And 200 years of history has proven that version of history "correct." Still -- we forget what happens when we marginalize and disenfranchise others to preserve our sense of safety and superiority. If we make it impossible for them to buy in, they will eventually opt-out.
To the detriment of everyone.
originally posted by: Edumakated
Everyone should not be able to vote.
I believe everyone should have to pass a basic civics test like the one we require immigrants to pass to become US Citizens. If immigrants have to know this stuff, shouldn't citizens?
US Citizenship Test
I think it would fix a lot of problems.
Thank you for sharing the above link. True, I missed only one of the questions out of the 24 asked. ( I had no idea who was the current chief justice in the supreme court)I did think that the most of them were quite basic and easy. Thus, me agreeing that this could be a good idea will probably seem biased. I actually realized I need to become more informed on our 3rd branch of government.(Supreme Court)!
I have to admit that if this was a prerequisite to voting, perhaps more Americans would be encouraged to become more informed.
a reply to: Metallicus
I have always thought we needed a commissioned citizen program where you have to earn your citizenship.
Frankly, there are plenty of people I would trade off for hard working, honest people....regardless of where they are born.
Yes, like star ship troopers. LOL
I would make all politicians have to get to the upper echelons of the service and make them pass rigorous tests and qualifying tasks.
IMO, not a single politician of the crop we have now would pass. Only the best most noble of the common would make it.
I have always thought we needed a commissioned citizen program where you have to earn your citizenship.
Frankly, there are plenty of people I would trade off for hard working, honest people....regardless of where they are born.
Yes, like star ship troopers. LOL
I would make all politicians have to get to the upper echelons of the service and make them pass rigorous tests and qualifying tasks.
IMO, not a single politician of the crop we have now would pass. Only the best most noble of the common would make it.
In Order To Save America, We Must Legally Prevent Oblivious People From Voting
So who gets to decide who's oblivious?
Some one who disagrees with a certain take on a matter? They're the oblivious ones?
This sound remarkably like Jim Crow during the wonderful years prior to the civil rights movement.
Nope. Everyone gets to vote. Whether I agree with 'em or not. Whether they have an opinion at all, they get to vote.
Define for me, please, who are the "oblivious"? Uninformed, perhaps? Or just disagreeing with someone's take on the matter?
Way, way, way too vague a criterion.
If you're 18. If you're a U.S. citizen. You get to vote, if you want to. That's the way it is, and the way it should be. In fact, if I had my way, I'd let folks even younger than 18 vote...say 16, or so. I suspect I'll be in the minority on that particular idea...
So who gets to decide who's oblivious?
Some one who disagrees with a certain take on a matter? They're the oblivious ones?
This sound remarkably like Jim Crow during the wonderful years prior to the civil rights movement.
Nope. Everyone gets to vote. Whether I agree with 'em or not. Whether they have an opinion at all, they get to vote.
Define for me, please, who are the "oblivious"? Uninformed, perhaps? Or just disagreeing with someone's take on the matter?
Way, way, way too vague a criterion.
If you're 18. If you're a U.S. citizen. You get to vote, if you want to. That's the way it is, and the way it should be. In fact, if I had my way, I'd let folks even younger than 18 vote...say 16, or so. I suspect I'll be in the minority on that particular idea...
There is a big difference between Jim Crow / Poll Taxes and demonstrating basic civic knowledge. People making this comparison are stretching.
We already test immigrants to gain their citizenship. The same exact test should be used to qualify to vote. With rights come responsibilities. It is unfair to those that do take time to inform themselves to have our votes cancelled out by people who can't even name three branches of government.
We already test immigrants to gain their citizenship. The same exact test should be used to qualify to vote. With rights come responsibilities. It is unfair to those that do take time to inform themselves to have our votes cancelled out by people who can't even name three branches of government.
a reply to: Edumakated
Not really all that great a stretch.
What were the excuses given for not allowing minorities the vote, again? Some of them were: Ignorance, which could be called obliviousness...could it not?
Not really all that great a stretch.
What were the excuses given for not allowing minorities the vote, again? Some of them were: Ignorance, which could be called obliviousness...could it not?
Hell, you could make an extremely simple pre-vote test for any election like:
"Who is the current president and current vice president?"
"Name two political parties which candidates are running under."
"Name two candidates that will be listed on the ballot."
I'm positive there would be thousands of failures.
"Who is the current president and current vice president?"
"Name two political parties which candidates are running under."
"Name two candidates that will be listed on the ballot."
I'm positive there would be thousands of failures.
originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: seagull
So the immigration test that the government currently uses to convey citizenship on immigrants is racist?
I'm sure some already view it as racist.
And I'm equally surprised that it is still a required exam.
I was under the impression that the government has been handing out ID's like beads during Mardi Gras.
Hasn't there already been voter issues with illegals voting?
new topics
-
Only two Navy destroyers currently operational as fleet size hits record low
Military Projects: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
George Stephanopoulos and ABC agree to pay $15 million to settle Trump defamation suit
Mainstream News: 14 hours ago, 17 flags -
Only two Navy destroyers currently operational as fleet size hits record low
Military Projects: 9 hours ago, 8 flags
active topics
-
George Stephanopoulos and ABC agree to pay $15 million to settle Trump defamation suit
Mainstream News • 12 • : TzarChasm -
Encouraging News Media to be MAGA-PAF Should Be a Top Priority for Trump Admin 2025-2029.
Education and Media • 91 • : TzarChasm -
More Bad News for Labour and Rachel Reeves Stole Christmas from Working Families
Regional Politics • 4 • : gortex -
One out of every 20 Canadians Dies by Euthanasia
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 25 • : fos613 -
Only two Navy destroyers currently operational as fleet size hits record low
Military Projects • 2 • : Bluntone22 -
They Know
Aliens and UFOs • 89 • : fos613 -
Pelosi injured in Luxembourg
Other Current Events • 37 • : fos613 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3695 • : RelSciHistItSufi -
Nov 2024 - Former President Barack Hussein Obama Has Lost His Aura.
US Political Madness • 16 • : Coelacanth55 -
Mood Music Part VI
Music • 3735 • : BrucellaOrchitis