The right to vote

[RandallFlagg]

It's not so much the ID requirement that I object to, but rather the types of ID's they'll allow and won't allow.

Many college students were told they couldn't use their college photo ID to vote, even though they were citizens.

State issued ID/Driver's license should be all you need. All you need do is go to your DMV to get one. If you don't have one, get one. If you're illegal, you know the drill. It's fairly simply, Biker. Pretty harmless.

Only problem with that one is that not everyone drives, so not everyone has a driver's license, and even if you went to get one, they generally cost you 50 plus dollars, and not everyone has that in their pockets.

State issued ID's, while they cost less (around 30 bucks), again, not everyone has the ability to go to the places where they can be issued, nor do they have the cash to get one, because the money is going for stuff like rent, utilities, food, etc.

Most people who make minimum wage live paycheck to paycheck.

Me? I think that you should be able to walk up with your SSN card, license, college ID, or whatever you've got that says who you are.

I STILL have my original SSN card that was issued in 1964. It CLEARLY states on the front of the card - "For Social Security purposes only. NOT to be used for Identification"


Bet YOURS doesn't say that.....

 

[KNB]

How many cases of voter fraud were there in 2012?

 

[Politico]

The right to vote shall no be infringed ....

The right is assumed.

Same wording as: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed ....

So the right to vote is well-established.
And you can't deny that right based on the inability to pass a test, or pay a tax.

But I have no problem with a photo ID - as long as they are free and easy to obtain.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President

Everything else is an amendment and amendments can be amended.

There is nothing in the original to say who can vote, just the voters.
That can be redefined to suit.

Yes it does. Jeez pick up a book.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's not so much the ID requirement that I object to, but rather the types of ID's they'll allow and won't allow.

Many college students were told they couldn't use their college photo ID to vote, even though they were citizens.

State issued ID/Driver's license should be all you need. All you need do is go to your DMV to get one. If you don't have one, get one. If you're illegal, you know the drill. It's fairly simply, Biker. Pretty harmless.

Only problem with that one is that not everyone drives, so not everyone has a driver's license, and even if you went to get one, they generally cost you 50 plus dollars, and not everyone has that in their pockets.

State issued ID's, while they cost less (around 30 bucks), again, not everyone has the ability to go to the places where they can be issued, nor do they have the cash to get one, because the money is going for stuff like rent, utilities, food, etc.

Most people who make minimum wage live paycheck to paycheck.

Me? I think that you should be able to walk up with your SSN card, license, college ID, or whatever you've got that says who you are.

Virtually every single place that has passed a voter ID law made a voter ID that was obtainable for free. This is a basic requirement for a voter ID law considering that anything other than free can be considered a poll tax.

That really destroys the VAST majority of arguments against voter ID.

 

[FA_Q2]

The right to vote shall no be infringed ....

The right is assumed.

Same wording as: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed ....

So the right to vote is well-established.
And you can't deny that right based on the inability to pass a test, or pay a tax.

But I have no problem with a photo ID - as long as they are free and easy to obtain.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President

Everything else is an amendment and amendments can be amended.

There is nothing in the original to say who can vote, just the voters.
That can be redefined to suit.

Again, you’re arguing unsuccessfully that the government or the people have the authority to place undue, unwarranted restrictions on the inalienable right to vote – they do not. The ‘amendment process’ has nothing to do with this fact, nor does it mitigate the inalienable right to vote absent undue, unwarranted restrictions.

?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

The basic fact of the matter is that an amendment could be passed that would make voting contingent on a test or anything that we can think of. That would be codified and legal considering that the constitution is the basis of all law. On that same token, ANY protected right outlined in the constitution could be infringed upon if the constitution were changed to reflect that.

It wont happen but claiming that it cannot happen or the process is irrelevant is rather inane. It very much matters. It is, in fact, how the right was codified originally as people DID NOT have the right to vote in the original constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

You can't use a test to exempt yourself from the laws of the land, why would you have to take a test in order to participate in the process that has does and will produce the law?

 

[Redfish]

the only test should be that you are an american citizen over the age of 18, are alive, and live in the district where you cast your vote. AND, you should have to prove you are who you claim to be. (voter ID)

 

[frigidweirdo]

the only test should be that you are an american citizen over the age of 18, are alive, and live in the district where you cast your vote. AND, you should have to prove you are who you claim to be. (voter ID)

What about the insane?
What about criminals in prison? I don't think they should be allowed to vote, they are having some of their rights infringed upon, and this is one that should be infringed upon. They can't do jury service, so they shouldn't be able to vote. (Not saying that other people who can't do it for specific reasons shouldn't be able to vote,btw)

 

[longknife]

And only in English!!!

 

[FA_Q2]

the only test should be that you are an american citizen over the age of 18, are alive, and live in the district where you cast your vote. AND, you should have to prove you are who you claim to be. (voter ID)

What about the insane?
What about criminals in prison? I don't think they should be allowed to vote, they are having some of their rights infringed upon, and this is one that should be infringed upon. They can't do jury service, so they shouldn't be able to vote. (Not saying that other people who can't do it for specific reasons shouldn't be able to vote,btw)

If the insane can get themselves to the polls, more power to them. There are not enough insane people to really make a difference anyway and a truly insane person is going to vote erratically - IOW they are going to balance each other out.

That would be an excuse to infringe on a right that really does not help anything.

As far as felons or criminals go, there really is not a problem there. Those have been given their day in court and part of the punishment for crime is that you cede some of your rights for a given time period. I don't agree with the idea that voting should be one of those though, at least AFTER they have served their time. There is no point in these indefinite punishments for crimes. If the crime is that bad you should not be let out of prison in the first place. If you have been released then your debt has been paid and all of your rights should be restored after.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the insane can get themselves to the polls, more power to them. There are not enough insane people to really make a difference anyway and a truly insane person is going to vote erratically - IOW they are going to balance each other out.

That would be an excuse to infringe on a right that really does not help anything.

As far as felons or criminals go, there really is not a problem there. Those have been given their day in court and part of the punishment for crime is that you cede some of your rights for a given time period. I don't agree with the idea that voting should be one of those though, at least AFTER they have served their time. There is no point in these indefinite punishments for crimes. If the crime is that bad you should not be let out of prison in the first place. If you have been released then your debt has been paid and all of your rights should be restored after.

The insane, or at least those declared insane through due process, cannot vote.

The same as criminals, they have both been found by a court to be subject to infringements of rights by the govt.

I did say those in prison, rather than those who have been convicted of a crime. Yes, if you live in society you should, under most circumstances, be allowed a say. But the EU is trying to force the UK to let prisoners vote, and I certainly don't agree with it, and I think most people wouldn't.

 

[Unkotare]

And only in English!!!

???????????????????

 

[Redfish]

the only test should be that you are an american citizen over the age of 18, are alive, and live in the district where you cast your vote. AND, you should have to prove you are who you claim to be. (voter ID)

What about the insane?
What about criminals in prison? I don't think they should be allowed to vote, they are having some of their rights infringed upon, and this is one that should be infringed upon. They can't do jury service, so they shouldn't be able to vote. (Not saying that other people who can't do it for specific reasons shouldn't be able to vote,btw)

yes, crazy people and convicted felons should not be allowed to vote, neither should dead people. I thought that was obvious, so I did not include them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

the only test should be that you are an american citizen over the age of 18, are alive, and live in the district where you cast your vote. AND, you should have to prove you are who you claim to be. (voter ID)

What about the insane?
What about criminals in prison? I don't think they should be allowed to vote, they are having some of their rights infringed upon, and this is one that should be infringed upon. They can't do jury service, so they shouldn't be able to vote. (Not saying that other people who can't do it for specific reasons shouldn't be able to vote,btw)

yes, crazy people and convicted felons should not be allowed to vote, neither should dead people. I thought that was obvious, so I did not include them.

Whether it's obvious to a lot of people I don't know.

Look around the board and see those who would limit rights because they don't suit their own agenda.

Look also at the situation where voting hardly seems to matter, as quite a lot of the politicians have been bought off by money.

What does a vote mean in the US nowadays?

It would mean a lot more with PR or something similar, I'm pro-the German system myself. PR overall but half of the parliament is made up of FPTP winners, who make up the candidates for the parties, and the others from lists.

 

[FA_Q2]

If the insane can get themselves to the polls, more power to them. There are not enough insane people to really make a difference anyway and a truly insane person is going to vote erratically - IOW they are going to balance each other out.

That would be an excuse to infringe on a right that really does not help anything.

As far as felons or criminals go, there really is not a problem there. Those have been given their day in court and part of the punishment for crime is that you cede some of your rights for a given time period. I don't agree with the idea that voting should be one of those though, at least AFTER they have served their time. There is no point in these indefinite punishments for crimes. If the crime is that bad you should not be let out of prison in the first place. If you have been released then your debt has been paid and all of your rights should be restored after.

The insane, or at least those declared insane through due process, cannot vote.

The same as criminals, they have both been found by a court to be subject to infringements of rights by the govt.

I did say those in prison, rather than those who have been convicted of a crime. Yes, if you live in society you should, under most circumstances, be allowed a say. But the EU is trying to force the UK to let prisoners vote, and I certainly don't agree with it, and I think most people wouldn't.

As long as due process is recognized (as you point out for insane people) then it is justifiable. That is what due process is about.

I have always found the push to allow incarcerated people vote rather insane in of itself. I cant fathom why you would think that it was just fine and dandy to remove free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to be secure in your person and a host of other rights both enumerated and implied but then suddenly balk at invading the right to vote.

It should go without saying that if you are paying your debt to society that you are not going to be selecting that societies leaders. I understand some of the others - your right to freely worship should be recognized and protected still but your right to influence government!

 

[Esmeralda]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

IQ tests are not a valid test of intelligence, knowledge or what someone would do with that knowledge. Some of the most brilliant people in history have been shown to be racists, dictators, mass murderers, serial killers, fascists, etc. An IQ test before voting is ludicrous.

 

[Indofred]

IQ tests are not a valid test of intelligence, knowledge or what someone would do with that knowledge. Some of the most brilliant people in history have been shown to be racists, dictators, mass murderers, serial killers, fascists, etc. An IQ test before voting is ludicrous.

At least the groups mentioned are intelligent, but they are a tiny minority.
I'm more concerned with the majority - the sheep that follow whatever they're told to follow but never question it.

These people, in my opinion, have no clue what they're voting for so should not be allowed to vote.
No business would allow some toilet cleaner to vote on a multi million Pound deal, so why should thick sods be allowed to decide the running of a country?

You don't allow the mad to vote because they're incapable of rational thought, so why do you allow shit shovellers and burger flippers to do so?
They are equally incapable of reason so they should be equally incapable of voting.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As long as due process is recognized (as you point out for insane people) then it is justifiable. That is what due process is about.

I have always found the push to allow incarcerated people vote rather insane in of itself. I cant fathom why you would think that it was just fine and dandy to remove free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to be secure in your person and a host of other rights both enumerated and implied but then suddenly balk at invading the right to vote.

It should go without saying that if you are paying your debt to society that you are not going to be selecting that societies leaders. I understand some of the others - your right to freely worship should be recognized and protected still but your right to influence government!

When it comes to the second amendment, the right to keep arms, and the right to be in the militia are there so the militia has a ready supply of arms and personnel. It is assumed that a person who has broken societies' rules is then probably not in a position where they will carry out their responsibilities either.
The same with voting, which is seen as a responsibility.

But i think the main problem, getting back to the topic in hand, is that people don't understand rights and the theory, so they don't see the connection of why people should have their rights infringed after due process.

 

[frigidweirdo]

At least the groups mentioned are intelligent, but they are a tiny minority.
I'm more concerned with the majority - the sheep that follow whatever they're told to follow but never question it.

These people, in my opinion, have no clue what they're voting for so should not be allowed to vote.
No business would allow some toilet cleaner to vote on a multi million Pound deal, so why should thick sods be allowed to decide the running of a country?

You don't allow the mad to vote because they're incapable of rational thought, so why do you allow shit shovellers and burger flippers to do so?
They are equally incapable of reason so they should be equally incapable of voting.

But some of these people are intelligent people. They'd maybe pass all the tests, but would still vote for someone you might consider not worth voting for.

The only thing you can do is make sure people have the skills to be able to figure things out for themselves. Surely if people are happy and not bothering to find out, then they think things are going well.

If your interests in life are family, job, happiness, and you vote for someone based on this, and then someone else says "they're sheep, they shouldn't be allowed to vote", you must see the problem here.

 

[Jughead]

Me? I think that you should be able to walk up with your SSN card, license, college ID, or whatever you've got that says who you are.

It needs to be a picture ID. Student IDs won't work since many foreign national students have valid student IDs. The list could include DOD (Department of Defense) card, driver's license, passport, or SENTRI card for Mexicans legally in the U.S.

When all else fails, a utility bill can also be used with a birth certificate (proof of citizenship), and any ID card with a photo (like a student ID card).