How far would you take this "Right to Vote" thing?

[DGS49]

Leftists excoriate Republicans for placing obstacles in front of prospective voters - you know, picture ID, register early, show up on Election Day, and stuff like that. They call it "vote suppression."

But let's look at a test case. Imagine that the Governor of California sought to guarantee the voting rights of the state's homeless population. So he proposes a program whereby "volunteers" could canvas the State's homeless encampments on Election Day, ascertain the names and (claimed) citizenship status of the people encamped there, create a deemed address and voting district for these unfortunates, register them to vote, assist them in filling out their ballots, and count those votes.

After all, they are mainly citizens, right, and all citizens are entitled to vote!

I have postulated in this and other forums that if someone is too stupid, incompetent, uninvolved, and/or careless that they can't do the basic stuff that has historically been required to vote, then maybe they shouldn't be voting. Their votes are less worthy than mine, and I resent being cancelled out by such invariably-Democrat votes.

But for the Lefties who may be reading this, how about the program described above? Would you support such an initiative?

Why or why not?

 

[Leo123]

Only living American citizens have the right to vote. Since this country is now flooded with non-citizens, it is time for a Federal law mandating proof of identity. We SHOULD be scrutinizing and limiting illegal voting. Democrats would never be elected if proof of identity and citizenship was mandated. They know it, that's why they are using one of their tried-and-true Saul Alinsky 'Rules For Radicals' tactics of re-defining words, terms and definitions. Today "Right to vote" means allowing dead people, non-citizens, and even voting machines to cast a vote or even multiple ballots. As long as they vote Democrat of course.

 

[progressive hunter]

Leftists excoriate Republicans for placing obstacles in front of prospective voters - you know, picture ID, register early, show up on Election Day, and stuff like that. They call it "vote suppression."

But let's look at a test case. Imagine that the Governor of California sought to guarantee the voting rights of the state's homeless population. So he proposes a program whereby "volunteers" could canvas the State's homeless encampments on Election Day, ascertain the names and (claimed) citizenship status of the people encamped there, create a deemed address and voting district for these unfortunates, register them to vote, assist them in filling out their ballots, and count those votes.

After all, they are mainly citizens, right, and all citizens are entitled to vote!

I have postulated in this and other forums that if someone is too stupid, incompetent, uninvolved, and/or careless that they can't do the basic stuff that has historically been required to vote, then maybe they shouldn't be voting. Their votes are less worthy than mine, and I resent being cancelled out by such invariably-Democrat votes.

But for the Lefties who may be reading this, how about the program described above? Would you support such an initiative?

Why or why not?

well we do have a test to drive a car,, a test as simple as you being responsible for everything involved with voting should be enough,,

 

[occupied]

Leftists excoriate Republicans for placing obstacles in front of prospective voters - you know, picture ID, register early, show up on Election Day, and stuff like that. They call it "vote suppression."

But let's look at a test case. Imagine that the Governor of California sought to guarantee the voting rights of the state's homeless population. So he proposes a program whereby "volunteers" could canvas the State's homeless encampments on Election Day, ascertain the names and (claimed) citizenship status of the people encamped there, create a deemed address and voting district for these unfortunates, register them to vote, assist them in filling out their ballots, and count those votes.

After all, they are mainly citizens, right, and all citizens are entitled to vote!

I have postulated in this and other forums that if someone is too stupid, incompetent, uninvolved, and/or careless that they can't do the basic stuff that has historically been required to vote, then maybe they shouldn't be voting. Their votes are less worthy than mine, and I resent being cancelled out by such invariably-Democrat votes.

But for the Lefties who may be reading this, how about the program described above? Would you support such an initiative?

Why or why not?

Well at least this is a little more honest than the fraud allegations. You feel like certain people should be prevented from voting because there is something about them that disqualifies them. Problem is, unless the disqualification exists in law and has been judged to be constitutional you have no right to apply arbitrary standards to who gets to vote.

 

[progressive hunter]

Leftists excoriate Republicans for placing obstacles in front of prospective voters - you know, picture ID, register early, show up on Election Day, and stuff like that. They call it "vote suppression."

But let's look at a test case. Imagine that the Governor of California sought to guarantee the voting rights of the state's homeless population. So he proposes a program whereby "volunteers" could canvas the State's homeless encampments on Election Day, ascertain the names and (claimed) citizenship status of the people encamped there, create a deemed address and voting district for these unfortunates, register them to vote, assist them in filling out their ballots, and count those votes.

After all, they are mainly citizens, right, and all citizens are entitled to vote!

I have postulated in this and other forums that if someone is too stupid, incompetent, uninvolved, and/or careless that they can't do the basic stuff that has historically been required to vote, then maybe they shouldn't be voting. Their votes are less worthy than mine, and I resent being cancelled out by such invariably-Democrat votes.

But for the Lefties who may be reading this, how about the program described above? Would you support such an initiative?

Why or why not?

Well at least this is a little more honest than the fraud allegations. You feel like certain people should be prevented from voting because there is something about them that disqualifies them. Problem is, unless the disqualification exists in law and has been judged to be constitutional you have no right to apply arbitrary standards to who gets to vote.

is identifying who you are with proof an arbitrary standard??

 

[Leo123]

Well at least this is a little more honest than the fraud allegations. You feel like certain people should be prevented from voting because there is something about them that disqualifies them. Problem is, unless the disqualification exists in law and has been judged to be constitutional you have no right to apply arbitrary standards to who gets to vote.

No one should be prevented from voting OR should be encouraged to vote if they don't really give a shit. Those who don't care to do what is necessary to vote should not have a say in this country, citizen or not. In fact no party should do anything to help, encourage, harvest ballots etc. and should receive severe punishment for doing so.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I have postulated in this and other forums that if someone is too stupid, incompetent, uninvolved, and/or careless that they can't do the basic stuff that has historically been required to vote, then maybe they shouldn't be voting. Their votes are less worthy than mine, and I resent being cancelled out by such invariably-Democrat votes.

I agree. I will go further and suggest that there should be voter qualifications for different elected offices, as well.

Everybody should be allowed to vote for their district representatives, but only legal practitioners should be qualified to vote for judges.

 

[progressive hunter]

I have postulated in this and other forums that if someone is too stupid, incompetent, uninvolved, and/or careless that they can't do the basic stuff that has historically been required to vote, then maybe they shouldn't be voting. Their votes are less worthy than mine, and I resent being cancelled out by such invariably-Democrat votes.

I agree. I will go further and suggest that there should be voter qualifications for different elected offices, as well.

Everybody should be allowed to vote for their district representatives, but only legal practitioners should be qualified to vote for judges.

I would just hit disagree but we know how you have hissy fits,,,

the judges decide peoples lives and therefor the people should be the ones voting for them,,

 

[DGS49]

Literacy Tests withstood Constitutional challenges for many, many years, and were only tossed out when SOME of them were found to be a pretext to discriminating against POC's. But the tests themselves are perfectly rational and there is nothing unconstitutional about them. If they result in a higher rejection rate for Black folks, then that is not necessarily the result of a discriminatory test. Black folks don't do as well as others in school. Why should an election Literacy Test be any different.

And of course, we all know that people wanting to be naturalized have to take a written test, right? I would support giving the same test to everyone who registers for the first time.

 

[occupied]

Well at least this is a little more honest than the fraud allegations. You feel like certain people should be prevented from voting because there is something about them that disqualifies them. Problem is, unless the disqualification exists in law and has been judged to be constitutional you have no right to apply arbitrary standards to who gets to vote.

No one should be prevented from voting OR should be encouraged to vote if they don't really give a shit. Those who don't care to do what is necessary to vote should not have a say in this country, citizen or not. In fact no party should do anything to help, encourage, harvest ballots etc. and should receive severe punishment for doing so.

Negative. Voting should always be officially encouraged. If you have a large number of discouraged voters in your district any politician who actually believes in democracy should make sure it's not not them doing the discouraging.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well at least this is a little more honest than the fraud allegations. You feel like certain people should be prevented from voting because there is something about them that disqualifies them. Problem is, unless the disqualification exists in law and has been judged to be constitutional you have no right to apply arbitrary standards to who gets to vote.

No one should be prevented from voting OR should be encouraged to vote if they don't really give a shit. Those who don't care to do what is necessary to vote should not have a say in this country, citizen or not. In fact no party should do anything to help, encourage, harvest ballots etc. and should receive severe punishment for doing so.

Negative. Voting should always be officially encouraged. If you have a large number of discouraged voters in your district any politician who actually believes in democracy should make sure it's not not them doing the discouraging.

we arent a democracy,,

 

[occupied]

Literacy Tests withstood Constitutional challenges for many, many years, and were only tossed out when SOME of them were found to be a pretext to discriminating against POC's. But the tests themselves are perfectly rational and there is nothing unconstitutional about them. If they result in a higher rejection rate for Black folks, then that is not necessarily the result of a discriminatory test. Black folks don't do as well as others in school. Why should an election Literacy Test be any different.

And of course, we all know that people wanting to be naturalized have to take a written test, right? I would support giving the same test to everyone who registers for the first time.

You ever look at those literacy tests? Every question had two answers to insure that the tester could readily disqualify anyone who took them. There was no way to pass them if they didn't want you voting in first place.

 

[BULLDOG]

Leftists excoriate Republicans for placing obstacles in front of prospective voters - you know, picture ID, register early, show up on Election Day, and stuff like that. They call it "vote suppression."

But let's look at a test case. Imagine that the Governor of California sought to guarantee the voting rights of the state's homeless population. So he proposes a program whereby "volunteers" could canvas the State's homeless encampments on Election Day, ascertain the names and (claimed) citizenship status of the people encamped there, create a deemed address and voting district for these unfortunates, register them to vote, assist them in filling out their ballots, and count those votes.

After all, they are mainly citizens, right, and all citizens are entitled to vote!

I have postulated in this and other forums that if someone is too stupid, incompetent, uninvolved, and/or careless that they can't do the basic stuff that has historically been required to vote, then maybe they shouldn't be voting. Their votes are less worthy than mine, and I resent being cancelled out by such invariably-Democrat votes.

But for the Lefties who may be reading this, how about the program described above? Would you support such an initiative?

Why or why not?

As usual, you toss up a straw man to fight. Nobody is advocating anything like what you just made up. Why are all right wing threads based on either blatant lies or absurd scenarios like you just spouted?

 

[WTH_Progs?]

The right prevents the left from voting, because it's a cool story and leftists enjoy victim roles.

Imagine that, a person is too dumb & lazy to vote and it's the other guy's fault.

PROGS do that shit all the time.

 

[Rocko]

There’s no doubt in my mind far left liberals would support those initiatives

 

[BULLDOG]

There’s no doubt in my mind far left liberals would support those initiatives

If you could point to just one, you wouldn't look like such a blatant liar.

 

[Leo123]

Negative. Voting should always be officially encouraged. If you have a large number of discouraged voters in your district any politician who actually believes in democracy should make sure it's not not them doing the discouraging.

An American citizen who doesn't care to vote should not count. We used to teach American patriotism in elementary schools. How old are you anyway?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I would just hit disagree but we know how you have hissy fits,,,

The disagree button counts, and I need a reply, in order for me to be able to defend my comment.

the judges decide peoples lives and therefor the people should be the ones voting for them,,

There is no way the people in a medium-size municipality know the judges' competency.

The Supreme Court doesn't differentiate between members of the Supreme Court and other federal judges

The only position in the Supreme Court that is actually mentioned and established by name in the Constitution is the chief justice. the associate justices are not officially established as a position on the court in the Constitution. The details were ironed out later after the Constitution had...

www.usmessageboard.com

I practice in federal court, at both the trial and appellate levels. The difference between judges at the district court level and the circuit court/Supreme Court level in terms of legal acumen and capacity to understand complex fact patterns is profound. There is a reason our very smartest jurists sit on appellate panels, and most district court judges remain at that station for their entire carreers as judges. There are some really bad district court judges. Calling them up on a rotation to SCOTUS to decide matters that become law of the land would spell disaster.

 

[progressive hunter]

I would just hit disagree but we know how you have hissy fits,,,

The disagree button counts, and I need a reply, in order for me to be able to defend my comment.

the judges decide peoples lives and therefor the people should be the ones voting for them,,

There is no way the people in a medium-size municipality know the judges' competency.

The Supreme Court doesn't differentiate between members of the Supreme Court and other federal judges

The only position in the Supreme Court that is actually mentioned and established by name in the Constitution is the chief justice. the associate justices are not officially established as a position on the court in the Constitution. The details were ironed out later after the Constitution had...

www.usmessageboard.com

I practice in federal court, at both the trial and appellate levels. The difference between judges at the district court level and the circuit court/Supreme Court level in terms of legal acumen and capacity to understand complex fact patterns is profound. There is a reason our very smartest jurists sit on appellate panels, and most district court judges remain at that station for their entire carreers as judges. There are some really bad district court judges. Calling them up on a rotation to SCOTUS to decide matters that become law of the land would spell disaster.

bad excuse to allow lawyers to vote for their own,,

as for defend your comment,, maybe I dont care what your defense is and its just a bad idea,,

either way thats no reason to have a hissy fit and troll someone else by disliking all their other comments,,

 

[Leo123]

You ever look at those literacy tests? Every question had two answers to insure that the tester could readily disqualify anyone who took them. There was no way to pass them if they didn't want you voting in first place.

Yes, I have taken literacy tests multiple times in elementary, junior high, high school, college and even in my business. I have to be literate to make a good living because I need to understand others. I have to be literate to be able to read a ballot and to read about who I am voting for.