Nobody on welfare should be allowed to vote

[goldcatt]

She didn't say anything different then I. Read it yourself.

Actually, it is different. Go over that second part again. The fact is all States allow citizens to vote for Electors, and I can't see that changing at this point even if technically it's allowed. Could you imagine the outcry over taking away the right to vote for President?

But there is nothing here to justify restricting the franchise on the basis of financial status, ability to pay, employment status, or any other way you try to look at welfare recipients. One person, one vote, no exceptions.

And to head off the felon argument, that's based on a different rationale, line of cases and power altogether.

You can't see it changing, but it doesn't mean states can't change it.

You said it yourself: "technically it's allowed". I am not questioning your opinion on should state election law be changed, I am saying that states has right to change the law and it CAN be changed withing constitutional boundaries.

Also, you're saying that there is nothing to justify restrictions but there is nothing that is saying that restrictions can't be implemented. In fact every state has voting rules and most of them are implementing restrictions of some kind. For example, in New York no ID is required at the polls, some counties in Alabama require oral exam about the Constitution when registering, in Virginia, Florida, Kentucky and one more state (don't remember) felons are banned from voting for life, Minnesota allows same day registration as voting...

All those rules/restrictions are legal and constitutional. Could I imagine taking away my right to vote? As long is constitutional, yes.

You're mixing several different issues together here as far as process vs. restrictions.

For example, when and how any eligible voter can register is a purely procedural rule and not a restriction on voting. Same thing with deadlines on registering, deadlines for absentee ballots, type of voting machines used, and the like. States always have the ability to decide the "how" and "when" unless there are specific Constitutional requirements to the contrary.

I realize there is an argument that requiring ID at the polls is restrictive, but set that aside for the purposes of this specific thread and again you are talking about a procedural "how" requirement, not a sweeping restriction on who may vote.

I'll get back to you with sources and a full explanation on restricting felons, but the short and sweet of it is that by denying convicted felons the right to vote the States are exercizing their police powers under the 10th Amendment (Not Article 2 and the 14th) to set penalties for behavior that violates specific criminal laws, itself already subject to the dictates of the 14th. Restrictions based on criminal behavior don't fall under the same rationale as restrictions based on things like class or financial status, as the latter is not a conscious choice to violate the standards of the law punishable by the State. I'll get you more on that in a bit.

This is the first I've heard of poll tests currently in use, and I'll need to look into that. A link would be appreciated. Poll tests are and have been expressly prohibited along with poll taxes as violating the 14th. If somebody figured out a way around that, I'm interested in seeing it.

And of course theoretically States can both grant and take away the right to vote for Presidential electors, it's right there in black and white in Article 2 Section 1, the Legislatures have the authority to determine - and, obviously, redetermine - how electors are selected:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Article II | LII / Legal Information Institute

But in a practical sense, it's never going to happen. The backlash would make the French Revolution look like a pleasant walk in the park.

The point being made by SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore is that once the State decides to grant the right to vote for Presidential electors to the people, it has to treat it as a fundamental right under the 14th and grant it to all citizens regardless of membership in a certain class - whether that class be race, religion, financial status, education level, or any other grouping NOT based on illegal behavior. It becomes a 14th Amendment issue rather than a 10th Amendment one. And that's where you'll run into probalems with poll taxes and restricting the franchise based on financial status or property ownership. It is discriminatory toward specific classes of citizens based solely on status, which is a no-no.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If we had really used the "one person, one vote" logic, Gore would have been president in 2000.

Because we still have the electoral college, THAT is the reason Bush Jr. won and the country got fucked over.

Besides, the electoral college was created because there were no airplanes or trains yet........just horses, and each town would send a representative that the TOWN ELECTED, to go cast the vote for president.

Sometimes, the person elected would vote for the person other than what they were told to.

Nope, get rid of the electoral college.

 

[Zona]

If we had really used the "one person, one vote" logic, Gore would have been president in 2000.

Because we still have the electoral college, THAT is the reason Bush Jr. won and the country got fucked over.

Besides, the electoral college was created because there were no airplanes or trains yet........just horses, and each town would send a representative that the TOWN ELECTED, to go cast the vote for president.

Sometimes, the person elected would vote for the person other than what they were told to.

Nope, get rid of the electoral college.

I have to disagree with you...we didnt get screwed over, we found those wmd's.......oh wait, nevermind. I think we should jdge if a person can vote by their thoughts on bush's presidency. If they think bush was a good president, they should not be allowed to vote in the future. Ever.

 

[Truthmatters]

If we had really used the "one person, one vote" logic, Gore would have been president in 2000.

Because we still have the electoral college, THAT is the reason Bush Jr. won and the country got fucked over.

Besides, the electoral college was created because there were no airplanes or trains yet........just horses, and each town would send a representative that the TOWN ELECTED, to go cast the vote for president.

Sometimes, the person elected would vote for the person other than what they were told to.

Nope, get rid of the electoral college.

Not needed , the real reason Bush won was the SCOTUS handed him the election.

The right also kept thousands of lega florida voters from voting with the floridas Felons list. Most who were disenfranchised had never been convicted of anything but had names that sounded like others names.

If they had not used the floridas felons list these people would have voted. The way they constructed the list it effected people of African desent at a large rate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The state appoints electors according to how they determine, based on the popular vote within the state.

Most states, after their popular vote, send all of their allotted electors, all in the same party of the winner of the popular vote, in their state.

a Couple of states have changed or are trying to change their system where, the popular vote proportionately determines the electors sent, where the electors from the party line popular vote are the ones sent off to vote for the President so there are both Democratic electors and Republican electors sent off to vote for the President.

Do you really think that Americano can comprehend this does not support his assertion?

 

[goldcatt]

If we had really used the "one person, one vote" logic, Gore would have been president in 2000.

Because we still have the electoral college, THAT is the reason Bush Jr. won and the country got fucked over.

Besides, the electoral college was created because there were no airplanes or trains yet........just horses, and each town would send a representative that the TOWN ELECTED, to go cast the vote for president.

Sometimes, the person elected would vote for the person other than what they were told to.

Nope, get rid of the electoral college.

I disagree - partially - on Bush v. Gore. IMO, the Supreme Court was right in its analysis of the problem, but the majority applied the wrong remedy.

If once the State grants the right to vote for electors it becomes a fundamental right for equal protection purposes, then ordering the full recount with specific guidelines to safeguard the accuracy of the count should have been the next logical step. Bush v. Gore was a compromise done in haste and with a result that contradicts the precedent cited as the foundation of the decison, IMO.

I understand the pressure the Justices were under and the practical (and financial) problems that would have resulted for Florida if they'd done the right thing, but doing the wrong thing had its own set of consequences. It's long done and over with and there's nothing anybody can do to change it almost 10 years later. But the Justices themselves said it shouldn't be used as precedent for a reason.

 

[Ame®icano]

OK, goldcatt, we can give him the benefit of the doubt. But it is fun to watch him bounce of the wall when he is smashed on the back hand. He gets really angry.

First, I can't imagine that someone thoughtless as you cant put yourself together along with anyone, yet with goldcatt who, unlike you, has brains. While I don't agree with her political views, she's definitely capable of intelligent conversation. With you I don't agree simply because you're moron.

You prove my point: you can't argue well or consistently.

Nobody can argue with you, moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Certainly not you, Americano. TM has tied you in knots as well. Really, think about what you write before you post. Self reflection is a good trait, one you need to learn obviously.

 

[Ame®icano]

The state appoints electors according to how they determine, based on the popular vote within the state.

Most states, after their popular vote, send all of their allotted electors, all in the same party of the winner of the popular vote, in their state.

a Couple of states have changed or are trying to change their system where, the popular vote proportionately determines the electors sent, where the electors from the party line popular vote are the ones sent off to vote for the President so there are both Democratic electors and Republican electors sent off to vote for the President.

And what that tells ya? States has power to change their system. As long they do it withing constitutional boundaries.

It's all aimed on controlling election. For instance, around 15 states allows 17 years old to vote in primaries if their 18th birthday comes before the election, while other states have restrictions on younger then 18 year old.

Can you tell me what those states gain by doing that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your conclusion is incorrect, Americano, and I am quite sure the others will straighten you out.

 

[goldcatt]

The state appoints electors according to how they determine, based on the popular vote within the state.

Most states, after their popular vote, send all of their allotted electors, all in the same party of the winner of the popular vote, in their state.

a Couple of states have changed or are trying to change their system where, the popular vote proportionately determines the electors sent, where the electors from the party line popular vote are the ones sent off to vote for the President so there are both Democratic electors and Republican electors sent off to vote for the President.

And what that tells ya? States has power to change their system. As long they do it withing constitutional boundaries.

It's all aimed on controlling election. For instance, around 15 states allows 17 years old to vote in primaries if their 18th birthday comes before the election, while other states have restrictions on younger then 18 year old.

Can you tell me what those states gain by doing that?

The "as long as they do it within Constitutional boundaries" part is the key here. Going back to the thread topic, changing the system to require an unconstitutional poll tax or to deny anyone the right to vote based on class is not within their power.

They can take the right away completely and put it back in the hands of the State Legislature, and if that's what you're advocating then it's perfectly legal. But can you imagine what would happen?

 

[Ame®icano]

@ goldcatt
I simply pointed on states’ rights to make their own rules and restrictions. I am talking about all issues, you're calling me on "mixing issues" and that's fine.

If New York (and I just learned Indiana too except on the state level) doesn’t require ID at the polls, it opens doors for fraud. New voting machines are getting smarter and can prevent cases like that, but from what happened in NY-23, it’s still possible. For those who care to read, here you can find pretty much all news about elections - VotersUnite.

About restricting felons, while there are cons and pros, it clearly falls under state rights and I fully support it. Some states are proposing changing laws (Kentucky house bill 70, Virginia also doing some changes), some states are still fighting it in court (Washington, Farrakhan v. Gregorie). What I wrote about Alabama “oral exam” I don’t have a link, I heard about it on PBS, I think its Dallas County, but not sure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The NY 23rd was not affected by voter fraud. That is merely your opinion until you offer evidence.

 

[goldcatt]

@ goldcatt
I simply pointed on states’ rights to make their own rules and restrictions. I am talking about all issues, you're calling me on "mixing issues" and that's fine.

If New York (and I just learned Indiana too except on the state level) doesn’t require ID at the polls, it opens doors for fraud. New voting machines are getting smarter and can prevent cases like that, but from what happened in NY-23, it’s still possible. For those who care to read, here you can find pretty much all news about elections - VotersUnite.

About restricting felons, while there are cons and pros, it clearly falls under state rights and I fully support it. Some states are proposing changing laws (Kentucky house bill 70, Virginia also doing some changes), some states are still fighting it in court (Washington, Farrakhan v. Gregorie). What I wrote about Alabama “oral exam” I don’t have a link, I heard about it on PBS, I think its Dallas County, but not sure.

We're looking at this from two different points of view I think. I'm looking at it in the thread context with the equal protection problem, you're being more general. That's cool.

I'll have to look into that Alabama thing, I kinda got sidetracked on another thread. But the use of any poll test is troubling to me.

 

[casper4020322]

Even though the system is abused, I disagree. It was the politicians who put the system in place to begin with. Besides, look at how many voters keep assholes in office because of all the pork they bring to their district.

Which is why people who own nothing shouldn't be voting....They don't really have to foot the bill for anything.

I rent so I don't own a home, I don't drive so I don't own a car but I work five freakin days of the week and pay my taxes and you are going to tell me that I don't have a right to vote? What planet are you living on?

 

[jillian]

@ goldcatt
I simply pointed on states’ rights to make their own rules and restrictions. I am talking about all issues, you're calling me on "mixing issues" and that's fine.

If New York (and I just learned Indiana too except on the state level) doesn’t require ID at the polls, it opens doors for fraud. New voting machines are getting smarter and can prevent cases like that, but from what happened in NY-23, it’s still possible. For those who care to read, here you can find pretty much all news about elections - VotersUnite.

About restricting felons, while there are cons and pros, it clearly falls under state rights and I fully support it. Some states are proposing changing laws (Kentucky house bill 70, Virginia also doing some changes), some states are still fighting it in court (Washington, Farrakhan v. Gregorie). What I wrote about Alabama “oral exam” I don’t have a link, I heard about it on PBS, I think its Dallas County, but not sure.

there was no allegation of voter fraud in NY-23.

there have, however, been substantiated problems with black box voting machines that don't have receipts like those used in 2004 in Ohio.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Even though the system is abused, I disagree. It was the politicians who put the system in place to begin with. Besides, look at how many voters keep assholes in office because of all the pork they bring to their district.

Which is why people who own nothing shouldn't be voting....They don't really have to foot the bill for anything.

I rent so I don't own a home, I don't drive so I don't own a car but I work five freakin days of the week and pay my taxes and you are going to tell me that I don't have a right to vote? What planet are you living on?

The planet Tea Pot.

 

[Ame®icano]

The state appoints electors according to how they determine, based on the popular vote within the state.

Most states, after their popular vote, send all of their allotted electors, all in the same party of the winner of the popular vote, in their state.

a Couple of states have changed or are trying to change their system where, the popular vote proportionately determines the electors sent, where the electors from the party line popular vote are the ones sent off to vote for the President so there are both Democratic electors and Republican electors sent off to vote for the President.

And what that tells ya? States has power to change their system. As long they do it withing constitutional boundaries.

It's all aimed on controlling election. For instance, around 15 states allows 17 years old to vote in primaries if their 18th birthday comes before the election, while other states have restrictions on younger then 18 year old.

Can you tell me what those states gain by doing that?

The "as long as they do it within Constitutional boundaries" part is the key here. Going back to the thread topic, changing the system to require an unconstitutional poll tax or to deny anyone the right to vote based on class is not within their power.

They can take the right away completely and put it back in the hands of the State Legislature, and if that's what you're advocating then it's perfectly legal. But can you imagine what would happen?

Finally we're getting somewhere. I am talking about legality, you're talking about practicality and what if's?

You see, I don't know why Obama insist on voting rights for felons, unless he's looking at them as his constituents. We can't rationalize on just one right, in this case "right to vote" without looking on other rights. If felons paid their debt to society, why don't we give them back all rights they lost? How about giving back to felons rights to bare arms? Why only right to vote is questionable? Where do you draw that line?

In regarding of "constitutional boundaries", the first one is that Constitution doesn't give right to vote to anyone. It only says in it's amendments that certain groups cannot be denied to vote if they meet all criteria. It's left to the states to regulate it.

 

[Care4all]

And what that tells ya? States has power to change their system. As long they do it withing constitutional boundaries.

It's all aimed on controlling election. For instance, around 15 states allows 17 years old to vote in primaries if their 18th birthday comes before the election, while other states have restrictions on younger then 18 year old.

Can you tell me what those states gain by doing that?

The "as long as they do it within Constitutional boundaries" part is the key here. Going back to the thread topic, changing the system to require an unconstitutional poll tax or to deny anyone the right to vote based on class is not within their power.

They can take the right away completely and put it back in the hands of the State Legislature, and if that's what you're advocating then it's perfectly legal. But can you imagine what would happen?

Finally we're getting somewhere. I am talking about legality, you're talking about practicality and what if's?

You see, I don't know why Obama insist on voting rights for felons, unless he's looking at them as his constituents. We can't rationalize on just one right, in this case "right to vote" without looking on other rights. If felons paid their debt to society, why don't we give them back all rights they lost? How about giving back to felons rights to bare arms? Why only right to vote is questionable? Where do you draw that line?

In regarding of "constitutional boundaries", the first one is that Constitution doesn't give right to vote to anyone. It only says in it's amendments that certain groups cannot be denied to vote if they meet all criteria. It's left to the states to regulate it.

2 states allow felons to vote in prison about 38 states allow exfelons to vote again already...12 states don't...I think.

 

[Zona]

Even though the system is abused, I disagree. It was the politicians who put the system in place to begin with. Besides, look at how many voters keep assholes in office because of all the pork they bring to their district.

Which is why people who own nothing shouldn't be voting....They don't really have to foot the bill for anything.

I rent so I don't own a home, I don't drive so I don't own a car but I work five freakin days of the week and pay my taxes and you are going to tell me that I don't have a right to vote? What planet are you living on?

Planet republico. Or perhaps its plantet goodoldays..?