Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote

[Procrustes Stretched]

VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV

New citizens usually can. Why not restrict voting based on how long one has been a lazy American?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

better question is why not? If it was good enough for the founding generation people like you genuflect before...

 

[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?

better question is why not? If it was good enough for the founding generation people like you genuflect before...

Founding generation?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

better question is why not? If it was good enough for the founding generation people like you genuflect before...

Founding generation?

Yeah, you know...the people who founded the USA: the people who declared independence, and the people who framed the Constitution, and mostly the people who ratified the Constitution giving it the power of law.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

better question is why not? If it was good enough for the founding generation people like you genuflect before...

Founding generation?

Yeah, you know...the people who founded the USA: the people who declared independence, and the people who framed the Constitution, and mostly the people who ratified the Constitution giving it the power of law.

Ah! The folks who thoughts,Avery was just fine, the vote shouldberestricted to white male property owners and believed that the musket was the ultimate in weaponry?

But they also had just enough forethought when drafting the constitution to allow for amendments

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nosmo King

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?

better question is why not? If it was good enough for the founding generation people like you genuflect before...

Founding generation?

Yeah, you know...the people who founded the USA: the people who declared independence, and the people who framed the Constitution, and mostly the people who ratified the Constitution giving it the power of law.

Ah! The folks who thoughts,Avery was just fine, the vote shouldberestricted to white male property owners and believed that the musket was the ultimate in weaponry?

But they also had just enough forethought when drafting the constitution to allow for amendments

Why should this generation have to use the amendment process? Why not initiate a new form of government?

 

[Kondor3]

...You think that why a person votes for a candidate should be a determining factor in whether they vote?...

No. Only whether they are overly-susceptible to voting to sustain or expand Nanny Statism.

...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...

Incorrect.

Modify that to read "...anyone who is a Chronic Layabout (non-disabled and other non-exempted) will be voting based on..." and you've got it.

...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...

Correct. Chronic Layabouts are not to be trusted. Some may be trustworthy. Most will not be. Unfortunately, further granularity of vetting or filtering would not be practicable, so, we would lose the handful of trustworthy ones along with the vast numbers of untrustworthy ones, in the context of vote participation. To make omelettes, ya gotta break a few eggs.

...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...

Mere detail, to be worked out easily enough, on the outside chance that the idea would ever actually gain traction on the national stage.

For now, as a placeholder, we could easily say that the criteria for exclusion from voting are: (1) not belonging to an exempted category of welfare recipient, (2) presently on the Dole, (3) on the Dole for X number of weeks or months or years, (4) able-bodied, (5) no other visible source of income and (6) no serious job-search interaction with the State.

...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...

All covered in the placeholder list (1) through (6) above.

...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...

Indeed. But we're not talking about the soft-and-fuzzies here. We're talking about whether someone is sucking on the Public Teat, and therefore has a Conflict of Interest and is therefore not trustworthy, to decide on candidates and matters focused upon sustaining and replenishing and perpetuating that Fountain of Goodies at taxpayer expense.

...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...

No.

My argument advocates restricting voting privileges for people who have a conflict of interests and will almost automatically vote to perpetuate and expand the Nanny State.

My argument advocates for an end to the Slow Financial Suicide that we are currently in the process of committing and that our children and grandchildren will curse us for.

...That is not a strong argument for restricting rights...

Eliminating a Conflict of Interest on a vast national scale and freeing us to begin dismantling the Nanny State before it is too late, is a marvelous argument for such an approach.

...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...

If you are giving-out Gubmint Freebies and you try to educate people NOT to put their hand-out for those Freebies, the Freebie-Receivers are going to laugh at you. No thanks.

...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?

The number of Sane People - who oppose the cultivation and growth of a Nanny State - represents a large segment of the population.

The number of Deluded People - who think we can sustain a Nanny State in perpetuity - when added to the Freebie Recipients - usually outnumber the Sane People.

The only way to get a handle on the Nanny State is to remove the Conflict of Interest - the Freebie Recipients - from the equation.

That way, only Financial Stakeholders - both Sane People and Deluded People - are engaged in examining Needs and Resources and reaching more compromises and making Intelligent and Responsible Decisions, rather than our present endless cycle of Touchy-Feely Feel-Good Voting, fueled by Vote Panderers and Vote Whores playing to the poor.

The Nanny State is ultimately unsustainable and should be dismantled - even if it requires a generation or two or three to complete the process.

There is no other way to stop that juggernaut and Financial Train Wreck, other than to prevent Freebie Receivers from voting to give themselves more Freebies, on other people's dimes.

Oh, we can yammer-on for hours or days or months or years, about raising folks out of poverty, and getting them off The Dole, but, in truth, we've been at it for 50 years - since LBJ's infamous War on Poverty began - and we're in worse shape now (as measured by the number of folks on The Dole) than back then - by an order of magnitude.

It ain't workin'.

Just as we we eventually had to admit to ourselves that it was time to end the 50-year-long embargo of Cuba...

It's time to admit that we've lost the War on Poverty...

And to take another approach...

Nanny-Statism isn't the answer.

And, if true, then we must act, sometime soon, to reverse that trend.

There is no other way to reverse that trend, than to prevent Freebie Recipients from voting to give themselves more Freebies on somebody else's dime.

Which, in turn, translates to restricting the vote, for Chronic Layabouts.

Don't kill the Messenger here... I merely serve-up the premise and the logic behind it... which, in turn, will have to stand or fall, upon its own merits.

 

[Montrovant]

...You think that why a person votes for a candidate should be a determining factor in whether they vote?...

No. Only whether they are overly-susceptible to voting to sustain or expand Nanny Statism.

...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...

Incorrect.

Modify that to read "...anyone who is a Chronic Layabout (non-disabled and other non-exempted) will be voting based on..." and you've got it.

...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...

Correct. Chronic Layabouts are not to be trusted. Some may be trustworthy. Most will not be. Unfortunately, further granularity of vetting or filtering would not be practicable, so, we would lose the handful of trustworthy ones along with the vast numbers of untrustworthy ones, in the context of vote participation. To make omelettes, ya gotta break a few eggs.

...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...

Mere detail, to be worked out easily enough, on the outside chance that the idea would ever actually gain traction on the national stage.

For now, as a placeholder, we could easily say that the criteria for exclusion from voting are: (1) not belonging to an exempted category of welfare recipient, (2) presently on the Dole, (3) on the Dole for X number of weeks or months or years, (4) able-bodied, (5) no other visible source of income and (6) no serious job-search interaction with the State.

...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...

All covered in the placeholder list (1) through (6) above.

...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...

Indeed. But we're not talking about the soft-and-fuzzies here. We're talking about whether someone is sucking on the Public Teat, and therefore has a Conflict of Interest and is therefore not trustworthy, to decide on candidates and matters focused upon sustaining and replenishing and perpetuating that Fountain of Goodies at taxpayer expense.

...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...

No.

My argument advocates restricting voting privileges for people who have a conflict of interests and will almost automatically vote to perpetuate and expand the Nanny State.

My argument advocates for an end to the Slow Financial Suicide that we are currently in the process of committing and that our children and grandchildren will curse us for.

...That is not a strong argument for restricting rights...

Eliminating a Conflict of Interest on a vast national scale and freeing us to begin dismantling the Nanny State before it is too late, is a marvelous argument for such an approach.

...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...

If you are giving-out Gubmint Freebies and you try to educate people NOT to put their hand-out for those Freebies, the Freebie-Receivers are going to laugh at you. No thanks.

...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?

The number of Sane People - who oppose the cultivation and growth of a Nanny State - represents a large segment of the population.

The number of Deluded People - who think we can sustain a Nanny State in perpetuity - when added to the Freebie Recipients - usually outnumber the Sane People.

The only way to get a handle on the Nanny State is to remove the Conflict of Interest - the Freebie Recipients - from the equation.

That way, only Financial Stakeholders - both Sane People and Deluded People - are engaged in examining Needs and Resources and reaching more compromises and making Intelligent and Responsible Decisions, rather than our present endless cycle of Touchy-Feely Feel-Good Voting, fueled by Vote Panderers and Vote Whores playing to the poor.

The Nanny State is ultimately unsustainable and should be dismantled - even if it requires a generation or two or three to complete the process.

There is no other way to stop that juggernaut and Financial Train Wreck, other than to prevent Freebie Receivers from voting to give themselves more Freebies, on other people's dimes.

Oh, we can yammer-on for hours or days or months or years, about raising folks out of poverty, and getting them off The Dole, but, in truth, we've been at it for 50 years - since LBJ's infamous War on Poverty began - and we're in worse shape now (as measured by the number of folks on The Dole) than back then - by an order of magnitude.

It ain't workin'.

Just as we we eventually had to admit to ourselves that it was time to end the 50-year-long embargo of Cuba...

It's time to admit that we've lost the War on Poverty...

And to take another approach...

Nanny-Statism isn't the answer.

And, if true, then we must act, sometime soon, to reverse that trend.

There is no other way to reverse that trend, than to prevent Freebie Recipients from voting to give themselves more Freebies on somebody else's dime.

Which, in turn, translates to restricting the vote, for Chronic Layabouts.

Don't kill the Messenger here... I merely serve-up the premise and the logic behind it... which, in turn, will have to stand or fall, upon its own merits.

I'm not killing the messenger. I'm opposing the message.

Your premise, when boiled down, is that income is the major determining factor in 'good' voting. I reject that premise.

I'll point out that ending the embargo of Cuba didn't involve stripping anyone of their voting rights.

I'll also point out that your idea seems to be antithetical to the basic premise of our system of government; that of representation. You wish to strip people of that representation based on your opinion of their voting habits. Our history is generally one of granting voting rights to more people, not taking them away from people. Yet you prefer stripping that representation away.

I assume you have seen various posters here make statements about a particular political party being dangerous for the country, sending us into disaster, and other similar claims. I wonder, do you see a significant difference between those people calling for members of the political party they think is destroying the nation having their voting rights stripped and you calling for those you consider drainers having their rights taken away?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...You think that why a person votes for a candidate should be a determining factor in whether they vote?...

No. Only whether they are overly-susceptible to voting to sustain or expand Nanny Statism.

...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...

Incorrect.

Modify that to read "...anyone who is a Chronic Layabout (non-disabled and other non-exempted) will be voting based on..." and you've got it.

...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...

Correct. Chronic Layabouts are not to be trusted. Some may be trustworthy. Most will not be. Unfortunately, further granularity of vetting or filtering would not be practicable, so, we would lose the handful of trustworthy ones along with the vast numbers of untrustworthy ones, in the context of vote participation. To make omelettes, ya gotta break a few eggs.

...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...

Mere detail, to be worked out easily enough, on the outside chance that the idea would ever actually gain traction on the national stage.

For now, as a placeholder, we could easily say that the criteria for exclusion from voting are: (1) not belonging to an exempted category of welfare recipient, (2) presently on the Dole, (3) on the Dole for X number of weeks or months or years, (4) able-bodied, (5) no other visible source of income and (6) no serious job-search interaction with the State.

...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...

All covered in the placeholder list (1) through (6) above.

...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...

Indeed. But we're not talking about the soft-and-fuzzies here. We're talking about whether someone is sucking on the Public Teat, and therefore has a Conflict of Interest and is therefore not trustworthy, to decide on candidates and matters focused upon sustaining and replenishing and perpetuating that Fountain of Goodies at taxpayer expense.

...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...

No.

My argument advocates restricting voting privileges for people who have a conflict of interests and will almost automatically vote to perpetuate and expand the Nanny State.

My argument advocates for an end to the Slow Financial Suicide that we are currently in the process of committing and that our children and grandchildren will curse us for.

...That is not a strong argument for restricting rights...

Eliminating a Conflict of Interest on a vast national scale and freeing us to begin dismantling the Nanny State before it is too late, is a marvelous argument for such an approach.

...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...

If you are giving-out Gubmint Freebies and you try to educate people NOT to put their hand-out for those Freebies, the Freebie-Receivers are going to laugh at you. No thanks.

...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?

The number of Sane People - who oppose the cultivation and growth of a Nanny State - represents a large segment of the population.

The number of Deluded People - who think we can sustain a Nanny State in perpetuity - when added to the Freebie Recipients - usually outnumber the Sane People.

The only way to get a handle on the Nanny State is to remove the Conflict of Interest - the Freebie Recipients - from the equation.

That way, only Financial Stakeholders - both Sane People and Deluded People - are engaged in examining Needs and Resources and reaching more compromises and making Intelligent and Responsible Decisions, rather than our present endless cycle of Touchy-Feely Feel-Good Voting, fueled by Vote Panderers and Vote Whores playing to the poor.

The Nanny State is ultimately unsustainable and should be dismantled - even if it requires a generation or two or three to complete the process.

There is no other way to stop that juggernaut and Financial Train Wreck, other than to prevent Freebie Receivers from voting to give themselves more Freebies, on other people's dimes.

Oh, we can yammer-on for hours or days or months or years, about raising folks out of poverty, and getting them off The Dole, but, in truth, we've been at it for 50 years - since LBJ's infamous War on Poverty began - and we're in worse shape now (as measured by the number of folks on The Dole) than back then - by an order of magnitude.

It ain't workin'.

Just as we we eventually had to admit to ourselves that it was time to end the 50-year-long embargo of Cuba...

It's time to admit that we've lost the War on Poverty...

And to take another approach...

Nanny-Statism isn't the answer.

And, if true, then we must act, sometime soon, to reverse that trend.

There is no other way to reverse that trend, than to prevent Freebie Recipients from voting to give themselves more Freebies on somebody else's dime.

Which, in turn, translates to restricting the vote, for Chronic Layabouts.

Don't kill the Messenger here... I merely serve-up the premise and the logic behind it... which, in turn, will have to stand or fall, upon its own merits.

I'm not killing the messenger. I'm opposing the message.

Your premise, when boiled down, is that income is the major determining factor in 'good' voting. I reject that premise.

I'll point out that ending the embargo of Cuba didn't involve stripping anyone of their voting rights.

I'll also point out that your idea seems to be antithetical to the basic premise of our system of government; that of representation. You wish to strip people of that representation based on your opinion of their voting habits. Our history is generally one of granting voting rights to more people, not taking them away from people. Yet you prefer stripping that representation away.

I assume you have seen various posters here make statements about a particular political party being dangerous for the country, sending us into disaster, and other similar claims. I wonder, do you see a significant difference between those people calling for members of the political party they think is destroying the nation having their voting rights stripped and you calling for those you consider drainers having their rights taken away?

Since past generations did not stick with how the framers viewed representation, how can you say this generation must stick with the recent ones of the past? Appealing to an authority that has to ignore the whole history...look at one where there is a progression of change. That's not an argument for why this generation has to follow that example or progression.

 

[Kondor3]

...I'm not killing the messenger. I'm opposing the message...

Noted.

...Your premise, when boiled down, is that income is the major determining factor in 'good' voting. I reject that premise...

My premise is that Chronic Layabouts should not have a say in fashioning or perpetuating Nanny Statism.

...I'll point out that ending the embargo of Cuba didn't involve stripping anyone of their voting rights...

True. Also irrelevant. It was served-up merely as an example of how a decades-long approach did not work, ultimately, and had to be set aside

...I'll also point out that your idea seems to be antithetical to the basic premise of our system of government; that of representation. You wish to strip people of that representation based on your opinion of their voting habits. Our history is generally one of granting voting rights to more people, not taking them away from people. Yet you prefer stripping that representation away...

Prefer? No. Wondering if it has become necessary? Yes. If it's a choice between perpetuating a Nanny State or disenfranchising Welfare Queens and Kings until they get off the Dole and back onto the Voter Lists, well, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, if that came to pass.

...I assume you have seen various posters here make statements about a particular political party being dangerous for the country, sending us into disaster, and other similar claims. I wonder, do you see a significant difference between those people calling for members of the political party they think is destroying the nation having their voting rights stripped and you calling for those you consider drainers having their rights taken away?

Oh, vast differences. I hold a mix of Conservative, Liberal and (mostly) Centrist beliefs and preferences; this is merely my Conservative Side getting some fresh air, and in a good cause; advancing the discussion about the Nanny State and what it will take to reverse direction on that slippery slope. Drastic circumstances can trigger drastic countermeasures, when matters of survival and long-term health and well-being are at stake. Is the advance of the Nanny State such a circumstance? Perhaps. We'll let The People decide.

 

[Montrovant]

...I'm not killing the messenger. I'm opposing the message...

Noted.

...Your premise, when boiled down, is that income is the major determining factor in 'good' voting. I reject that premise...

My premise is that Chronic Layabouts should not have a say in fashioning or perpetuating Nanny Statism.

...I'll point out that ending the embargo of Cuba didn't involve stripping anyone of their voting rights...

True. Also irrelevant. It was served-up merely as an example of how a decades-long approach did not work, ultimately, and had to be set aside

...I'll also point out that your idea seems to be antithetical to the basic premise of our system of government; that of representation. You wish to strip people of that representation based on your opinion of their voting habits. Our history is generally one of granting voting rights to more people, not taking them away from people. Yet you prefer stripping that representation away...

Prefer? No. Wondering if it has become necessary? Yes. If it's a choice between perpetuating a Nanny State or disenfranchising Welfare Queens and Kings until they get off the Dole and back onto the Voter Lists, well, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, if that came to pass.

...I assume you have seen various posters here make statements about a particular political party being dangerous for the country, sending us into disaster, and other similar claims. I wonder, do you see a significant difference between those people calling for members of the political party they think is destroying the nation having their voting rights stripped and you calling for those you consider drainers having their rights taken away?

Oh, vast differences. I hold a mix of Conservative, Liberal and (mostly) Centrist beliefs and preferences; this is merely my Conservative Side getting some fresh air, and in a good cause; advancing the discussion about the Nanny State and what it will take to reverse direction on that slippery slope. Drastic circumstances can trigger drastic countermeasures, when matters of survival and long-term health and well-being are at stake. Is the advance of the Nanny State such a circumstance? Perhaps. We'll let The People decide.

What are the vast differences you see? You are calling for taking away the voting rights of those you see as causing harm to the country by how they vote. How is that different from, let's say, someone calling for Democrats or Republicans to lose voting rights because they believe either of those parties is causing harm to the country? Or someone calling for Muslims to be denied the vote because we are 'at war with Islam'?

Once again, if enough of the people feel that the politicians being voted into office are pandering to the Dolists, why don't those people vote better representatives into office? If not enough people agree, then aren't you just trying to game the system to get what you consider the right candidates elected?

And if we are to remove voting rights from one particular group of people now, what stops another group from being denied the right to vote later? At some point, you may well find yourself in a group denied the right to vote because you don't fit into someone's idea of a worthy voter.

 

[Montrovant]

...You think that why a person votes for a candidate should be a determining factor in whether they vote?...

No. Only whether they are overly-susceptible to voting to sustain or expand Nanny Statism.

...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...

Incorrect.

Modify that to read "...anyone who is a Chronic Layabout (non-disabled and other non-exempted) will be voting based on..." and you've got it.

...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...

Correct. Chronic Layabouts are not to be trusted. Some may be trustworthy. Most will not be. Unfortunately, further granularity of vetting or filtering would not be practicable, so, we would lose the handful of trustworthy ones along with the vast numbers of untrustworthy ones, in the context of vote participation. To make omelettes, ya gotta break a few eggs.

...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...

Mere detail, to be worked out easily enough, on the outside chance that the idea would ever actually gain traction on the national stage.

For now, as a placeholder, we could easily say that the criteria for exclusion from voting are: (1) not belonging to an exempted category of welfare recipient, (2) presently on the Dole, (3) on the Dole for X number of weeks or months or years, (4) able-bodied, (5) no other visible source of income and (6) no serious job-search interaction with the State.

...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...

All covered in the placeholder list (1) through (6) above.

...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...

Indeed. But we're not talking about the soft-and-fuzzies here. We're talking about whether someone is sucking on the Public Teat, and therefore has a Conflict of Interest and is therefore not trustworthy, to decide on candidates and matters focused upon sustaining and replenishing and perpetuating that Fountain of Goodies at taxpayer expense.

...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...

No.

My argument advocates restricting voting privileges for people who have a conflict of interests and will almost automatically vote to perpetuate and expand the Nanny State.

My argument advocates for an end to the Slow Financial Suicide that we are currently in the process of committing and that our children and grandchildren will curse us for.

...That is not a strong argument for restricting rights...

Eliminating a Conflict of Interest on a vast national scale and freeing us to begin dismantling the Nanny State before it is too late, is a marvelous argument for such an approach.

...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...

If you are giving-out Gubmint Freebies and you try to educate people NOT to put their hand-out for those Freebies, the Freebie-Receivers are going to laugh at you. No thanks.

...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?

The number of Sane People - who oppose the cultivation and growth of a Nanny State - represents a large segment of the population.

The number of Deluded People - who think we can sustain a Nanny State in perpetuity - when added to the Freebie Recipients - usually outnumber the Sane People.

The only way to get a handle on the Nanny State is to remove the Conflict of Interest - the Freebie Recipients - from the equation.

That way, only Financial Stakeholders - both Sane People and Deluded People - are engaged in examining Needs and Resources and reaching more compromises and making Intelligent and Responsible Decisions, rather than our present endless cycle of Touchy-Feely Feel-Good Voting, fueled by Vote Panderers and Vote Whores playing to the poor.

The Nanny State is ultimately unsustainable and should be dismantled - even if it requires a generation or two or three to complete the process.

There is no other way to stop that juggernaut and Financial Train Wreck, other than to prevent Freebie Receivers from voting to give themselves more Freebies, on other people's dimes.

Oh, we can yammer-on for hours or days or months or years, about raising folks out of poverty, and getting them off The Dole, but, in truth, we've been at it for 50 years - since LBJ's infamous War on Poverty began - and we're in worse shape now (as measured by the number of folks on The Dole) than back then - by an order of magnitude.

It ain't workin'.

Just as we we eventually had to admit to ourselves that it was time to end the 50-year-long embargo of Cuba...

It's time to admit that we've lost the War on Poverty...

And to take another approach...

Nanny-Statism isn't the answer.

And, if true, then we must act, sometime soon, to reverse that trend.

There is no other way to reverse that trend, than to prevent Freebie Recipients from voting to give themselves more Freebies on somebody else's dime.

Which, in turn, translates to restricting the vote, for Chronic Layabouts.

Don't kill the Messenger here... I merely serve-up the premise and the logic behind it... which, in turn, will have to stand or fall, upon its own merits.

I'm not killing the messenger. I'm opposing the message.

Your premise, when boiled down, is that income is the major determining factor in 'good' voting. I reject that premise.

I'll point out that ending the embargo of Cuba didn't involve stripping anyone of their voting rights.

I'll also point out that your idea seems to be antithetical to the basic premise of our system of government; that of representation. You wish to strip people of that representation based on your opinion of their voting habits. Our history is generally one of granting voting rights to more people, not taking them away from people. Yet you prefer stripping that representation away.

I assume you have seen various posters here make statements about a particular political party being dangerous for the country, sending us into disaster, and other similar claims. I wonder, do you see a significant difference between those people calling for members of the political party they think is destroying the nation having their voting rights stripped and you calling for those you consider drainers having their rights taken away?

Since past generations did not stick with how the framers viewed representation, how can you say this generation must stick with the recent ones of the past? Appealing to an authority that has to ignore the whole history...look at one where there is a progression of change. That's not an argument for why this generation has to follow that example or progression.

I'm sorry, what? What ignoring of history did I do? The historical trend in this country, so far as I'm aware, is of granting voting rights rather than removing them. That doesn't mean it can't be done. Nor is it the sole basis for my argument.

 

[Kondor3]

...What are the vast differences you see?...

True Conservatives are closer to being one-trick-ponies or towing a single party line. I'm a Cafeteria type. I borrow from both sides, and the middle. You're merely catching me taking my Conservative side out for a walk and a poop.

...You are calling for taking away the voting rights of those you see as causing harm to the country by how they vote...

Correct.

...How is that different from, let's say, someone calling for Democrats or Republicans to lose voting rights because they believe either of those parties is causing harm to the country? Or someone calling for Muslims to be denied the vote because we are 'at war with Islam'?...

None of those other examples represent Chronic Layabouts voting themselves continued Layabout Benefits.

...Once again, if enough of the people feel that the politicians being voted into office are pandering to the Dolists, why don't those people vote better representatives into office? If not enough people agree, then aren't you just trying to game the system to get what you consider the right candidates elected?...

Yep. And that's what Public Dialogue is all about. To advance ideas to the discussion stage and to get the public talking about them, for better or worse.

...And if we are to remove voting rights from one particular group of people now, what stops another group from being denied the right to vote later? At some point, you may well find yourself in a group denied the right to vote because you don't fit into someone's idea of a worthy voter.

Thank you, Pastor Niemoller.

If I'm voting for candidates simply to allow myself to stay at home and not to work and to suck off the State Teat, well, I wouldn't blame you for excluding me, as well.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm sorry, what? What ignoring of history did I do? The historical trend in this country, so far as I'm aware, is of granting voting rights rather than removing them. That doesn't mean it can't be done. Nor is it the sole basis for my argument.

Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is to them. Many of them were of the opinion that future generations should not be tied to the past as strictly as you would have us be.

This reminds me of people who don't fully grasp what Joseph Campbell said about religion and science:

“There's no real conflict between science and religion ... What is in conflict is the science of 2000 BC ... and the science of the 20th century AD.” ​

Regarding the politics and ideologies of the 18th and 21st centuries, I'd say we have a conflict between the ideological and philosophical beliefs of 18th century men and the experiences of 21st century men and women.

I believe many of the most well known of the founding generation would laugh at our childish and ridiculous adoration and worship of them and their words. They were far too liberal and mature to be the clay-footed idols we worship today

 

[Montrovant]

I'm sorry, what? What ignoring of history did I do? The historical trend in this country, so far as I'm aware, is of granting voting rights rather than removing them. That doesn't mean it can't be done. Nor is it the sole basis for my argument.

Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is to them. Many of them were of the opinion that future generations should not be tied to the past as strictly as you would have us be.

This reminds me of people who don't fully grasp what Joseph Campbell said about religion and science:

“There's no real conflict between science and religion ... What is in conflict is the science of 2000 BC ... and the science of the 20th century AD.” ​

Regarding the politics and ideologies of the 18th and 21st centuries, I'd say we have a conflict between the ideological and philosophical beliefs of 18th century men and the experiences of 21st century men and women.

I believe many of the most well known of the founding generation would laugh at our childish and ridiculous adoration and worship of them and their words. They were far too liberal and mature to be the clay-footed idols we worship today

I in no way appealed to the founders. In fact, if anything, I was pointing out how the laws in this country have progressed after the founding. The trend of granting voting rights would be allowing blacks to vote, or women, things well after the founding of the country. I have never been a fan of appealing to what the founders would think of today's society nor of assuming one knows how they all thought, or that they even agreed on any given subject. I don't know where you get an appeal to the founders from my bringing up changes to voting rights over the course of the country's history.

 

[westwall]

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

It demonstrates the bare minimum of knowledge of the country and the laws that govern it. If you don't know you how the 1st Amendment affects you you might be stupid enough to vote for the guy that wants to limit it.

 

[Nosmo King]

There seems to be an eagerness to test the electorate by the Right Wing. This testing is to ensure that the voters tend to agree with them on the issues.

There is a plague of gun violence in this country. Should gun ownership be subjected to a test to ensure the mental and emotional competence of those gun owners?

The Right Wing would scream NO! as such testing would be an infringement on gun rights.

Anyone else see any irony in that? Guns for everyone, while the vote should be restricted?

 

[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.

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:
View attachment 46441
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

If the poor have such profound political power, they sure do a piss poor job of exercising it. You act as if there is this consistent group of folks on some form of assistance that never change. That is bullshit. People go on and off different forms to assistance. Someone may be fully employed for ten years, laid off and receiving Unemployment, food stamps, medical assistance and even some welfare and you would make them ineligible to vote for the time period they are "not contributing? What you cannot explain is how any of this is administered. Most states hold two elections per year, sometimes more. What will the huge bureaucracy that will have to review the eligibility to vote of the 200 million Americans of voting age? If one is gainfully employed from Jan to May but out of work from May to November, do they vote in the primary but not the General? Who decides when one is contributing enough to vote? Who pays for the huge influx of Court cases that will be filed to challenge these determinations? Voting is a fundamental right in this country. It can be infringed, but only after Due Process and not in any way that violates equal protection. You talk above about income levels. Are we basing voting on your income or being dependent on the government? If you earn only 10 k a year but are living on savings or inheritance or a lottery award or simply because you live in the country and are self sufficient, do you get to vote? If you are a stay at home mom, do you vote? What if you depended on a husband to support you and he dies and your only recourse if welfare and food stamps for your family until you can obtain skills to work? Getting past the wholly Un-American notion that voting should be restricted based on wealth or income or receipt of government assistance, you have not offered any explanation as to how such a system would be administered or considered the astronomical cost of doing so in a manner that will not prevent eligible folks from voting.

 

[Kondor3]

There seems to be an eagerness to test the electorate by the Right Wing. This testing is to ensure that the voters tend to agree with them on the issues...

The objection is not based upon political opposition.

The objection is based upon fiscal responsibility and sustainability of Nanny State benefits, and related conflicts of interest, and mandatory recusal.

...There is a plague of gun violence in this country. Should gun ownership be subjected to a test to ensure the mental and emotional competence of those gun owners?...

Absolutely.

1. completion of a periodic physical
2. completion of a periodic psych eval
3. completion of a periodic background check
4. mandatory licensing of owners
5. mandatory registration of each and every firearm
6. national standards for sale, transfer, disposal, etc., of firearms
7. national database with bidirectional feed to all of Obama's 57 States to ensure compliance
8. penalties a couple of notches shy of crucifixion for violations

...The Right Wing would scream NO! as such testing would be an infringement on gun rights. Anyone else see any irony in that? Guns for everyone, while the vote should be restricted?

Gun owners are not voting to suck umpteen billions of dollars out of the Treasury in order to sit home and not work, at the expense of others

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Absolutely.

1. completion of a periodic physical
2. completion of a periodic psych eval
3. completion of a periodic background check
4. mandatory licensing of owners
5. mandatory registration of each and every firearm
6. national standards for sale, transfer, disposal, etc., of firearms
7. national database with bidirectional feed to all of Obama's 57 States to ensure compliance
8. penalties a couple of notches shy of crucifixion for violations

I trust you're being sarcastic.

1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]