2/3 of Republicans believe voting is a privilege - Not a right

[whitehall]

You can interpret the poll like Jason Lemon or you can look at the entire polling data. The poll found that a whopping 95% of Americans agreed that voters need to be qualified

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Fifteenth Amendment

Section 1​

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

​

That doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[kyzr]

Uh..that makes voting a "right" according to your definition. And BTW, the Constitution declares it a right.
And by the way again, throwing out elections and rigging votes are EXACTLY what Republicans are looking
to do with these restrictive voting measures.

1. Voting is both a right and a privilege. You need to meet criteria to vote, age, residency, registration, etc. that makes it a privilege. If you meet all of the criteria you can't be denied the "right" to vote.

2. How is verifying that voter fraud is eliminated the same as throwing out elections, its not.
Democrats are the ones rigging votes with all their voter fraud schemes.

3. Only legitimate votes should count.

 

[DrLove]

That doesn't say what you think it does.

You too Taz?! Oh Lordy

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You too Taz?! Oh Lordy

I know you don't realize it, but you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[themirrorthief]

It's time to blow up the filibuster completely.

yep cause dems will b minority in one year

 

[DrLove]

Exactly my point. Republicans responding to the poll think that there is no difference between a right and a privilege, since they are synonyms as per their definitions. So trying to make noise, or get some meaning over a meaningless poll is nonsense.

For the poll to make sense the choices should have had the "Constitutional" meanings attached. Since the Constitutional meanings weren't attached, they are synonyms.

If voting is a "privilege" you need to meet certain conditions, age, residency, registration, etc.
If voting is a "right" it can't be taken away if you meet those conditions.
Both answers are correct.

Many rights can be taken away from citizens who do not obey the law. The right to freedom for instance.
But your clownery about synonyms is as goofy as it is patently absurd.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I guess Democrats know more about the Constitution. See Section 2 - Time for the filibuster carveout to end this BS. In any case where such a right is being upended by power-hungry piglets, 50 votes shall be all that is needed.

Only a Third of Republicans Think Voting Is a Fundamental Right: Poll

Conversely, nearly 80 percent of Democrats view casting a ballot in elections as a fundamental right.

www.newsweek.com

Fifteenth Amendment

Section 1​

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2​

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Ok, so let's make sure we are clear here because this gets overlooked so many times.

Yes, we have the "right" to vote, but we just assume that means "in general", which is not the case.

If you read the constitution, it spells out exactly how presidents are to be chosen, and nowhere in that clause does it say that the citizens vote for president.

Legislature chooses electors, and those electors each vote for candidates. The one with the most votes becomes potus, the one with the second most becomes vice pres. The president isn't even supposed to choose his own running mate. That is the vote of the electors.

So then, that begs the question, what does our "right" to vote extend to. While it never actually spells out in the cotus what that right entails, it does spell out the election process for potus and vice potus, so this means that the only thing left is congress.

We have the right to vote for our senate and house members, and they in turn choose electors that vote for presidents.

That's the way I understand it anyway. I don't see any text in the constitution that gives the citizen the right to vote for president.

Am I wrong? If so, please show me where.

 

[themirrorthief]

Don't be a weasel and try to spin it.
Just admit that 2/3 of Republicans don't understand the Constitution.
Driving is a privilege - Voting is a RIGHT.

democrats shit all over the constitution daily

 

[themirrorthief]

Many rights can be taken away from citizens who do not obey the law. The right to freedom for instance.
But your clownery about synonyms is as goofy as it is patently absurd.

i never had sex with that woman ms lewinsky

 

[otto105]

1. Voting is both a right and a privilege. You need to meet criteria to vote, age, residency, registration, etc. that makes it a privilege. If you meet all of the criteria you can't be denied the "right" to vote.

2. How is verifying that voter fraud is eliminated the same as throwing out elections, its not.
Democrats are the ones rigging votes with all their voter fraud schemes.

3. Only legitimate votes should count.

How much fraud can you point too? With fact BTW.

 

[initforme]

3 out of 2 people have trouble with fractions

 

[DrLove]

Ok, so let's make sure we are clear here because this gets overlooked so many times.

Yes, we have the "right" to vote, but we just assume that means "in general", which is not the case.

If you read the constitution, it spells out exactly how presidents are to be chosen, and nowhere in that clause does it say that the citizens vote for president.

Legislature chooses electors, and those electors each vote for candidates. The one with the most votes becomes potus, the one with the second most becomes vice pres. The president isn't even supposed to choose his own running mate. That is the vote of the electors.

So then, that begs the question, what does our "right" to vote extend to. While it never actually spells out in the cotus what that right entails, it does spell out the election process for potus and vice potus, so this means that the only thing left is congress.

We have the right to vote for our senate and house members, and they in turn choose electors that vote for presidents.

That's the way I understand it anyway. I don't see any text in the constitution that gives the citizen the right to vote for president.

Am I wrong? If so, please show me where.

No, legislatures do not choose electors. Voters choose electors and state legislatures certify those electors. That is of course, unless Republican legislatures are allowed to have their way and bypass Secretaries of State/ election boards and without a shred of evidence - toss out votes in districts where they do not agree with the outcome.

 

[gipper]

I guess Democrats know more about the Constitution. See Section 2 - Time for the filibuster carveout to end this BS. In any case where such a right is being upended by power-hungry piglets, 50 votes shall be all that is needed.

Only a Third of Republicans Think Voting Is a Fundamental Right: Poll

Conversely, nearly 80 percent of Democrats view casting a ballot in elections as a fundamental right.

www.newsweek.com

Fifteenth Amendment

Section 1​

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2​

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Clearly now, voting doesn’t make any difference. Why bother?

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, legislatures do not choose electors. Voters choose electors and state legislatures certify those electors. That is of course, unless Republican legislatures are allowed to have their way and bypass Secretaries of State/ election boards and without a shred of evidence - toss out votes in districts where they do not agree with the outcome.

No, that's the way we've been doing it, but its wrong.

And my bad, you are right, the legislature doesn't choose the electors, the state appoints them, based on the number of senators and representatives, and the legisture will direct them.

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

www.law.cornell.edu

Again, it says the state appoints the electors, in that article, nowhere does it mention the vote of the citizen.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

1. Voting is both a right and a privilege. You need to meet criteria to vote, age, residency, registration, etc. that makes it a privilege. If you meet all of the criteria you can't be denied the "right" to vote.

2. How is verifying that voter fraud is eliminated the same as throwing out elections, its not.
Democrats are the ones rigging votes with all their voter fraud schemes.

3. Only legitimate votes should count.

So far, there is no proof of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. Therefore, the votes were legitimate. That takes care of #3. States have voting rules that you need to meet. They have been met based on certification of the vote by all 50 states. That takes care of #1. That leaves #2 which is the crux of your gripe and your baseless claims of voter fraud. No evidence to suggest ANY Democrat is rigging anything. You're pissed cause your man lost. So the Republican led legislatures of these states seek to suppress the vote, targeting minorities and elderly for the most part. Restrict voting days and hours, no holiday to vote, cut down on the number of polling places and drop boxes, and severely restrict mail in voting, which a lot of states and the military have been using for decades without incident...up until the man who was going to return your country to you...lost. Coincidence? I think not. He after all was telegraphing he would contest the election if he lost months before.

And lest you think the right for states and municipalities to throw out election results for bullshit reasons isn't being considered...here you go.

Proposed law would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results

Republican's proposal would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results even after they are formally certified by the governor and secretary of state and the electors are counted by

tucson.com

 

[DrLove]

No, that's the way we've been doing it, but its wrong.

And my bad, you are right, the legislature doesn't choose the electors, the state appoints them, based on the number of senators and representatives, and the legisture will direct them.

Again, it says the state appoints the electors, in that article, nowhere does it mention the vote of the citizen.

No, the legislature is not allowed to "direct them", OR choose their own slate of electors.

 

[struth]

The same was said about Jim Crow laws...no one was having their right to vote taken away...you just had to jump thru....hoops.

oh no, the dems Jim Crow laws were very affective at voter suppression, among other things.

but what does that have to do with today? and this thread?

 

[whitehall]

Pew doesn't list how many people responded to the poll so we don't know if it's 1,000 or less. The interesting part of the post is the fact that we aren't seeing Pew's findings. What we are seeing is (leftwing) Newsweek's interpretation of Pew's poll that seems to give democrats an edge. An unbiased post would claim that 95% of Americans want honest elections and would probably support voter photo I.D.

 

[Crepitus]

Gridlock is a good thing. The harder it is for congress to pass laws, the better it is for the freedom of the American people. The Federal Government is far too intrusive as it is. If I had my way, every law would have a two year sunset date and would have to individually debated and voted on again by a different congress. That would get rid of most of the stupid laws.

And there's that famous republican rallying cry:. FREEDUMB!!!