The right to vote

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hardly..Voting is a basic right. Restricting voting in any sense is anti freedom.

This idea of a test is only coming from power hungry tyrants. .you want control.

I'm certainly not anti american and I would have no problem with a basic quiz. I am anti idiocy.

Other voters impact other Americans with their vote so I see no problem with making sure the vote is exercised responsibly.

Then you and others should have no problem with the idea that we can infringe on your right to own a gun.

I don't have a right to own a gun. The very lack of responsibility that I spoke of cost me that right.

 

[Indofred]

Well that excludes you and a majority of people who think like you. Voting is a basic right that you don't need to prove anything in order to have.
You are anti american.

Pointless troll post

Hardly..Voting is a basic right. Restricting voting in any sense is anti freedom.

This idea of a test is only coming from power hungry tyrants. .you want control.

Are the insane allowed to vote and, if not, why not?
They would be considered incapable of rational thought.
I argue, thick people have the same disability.
If you can't understand the policies and likely outcome of them, you should not be allowed to decide.
Amendments can be amended again, as can voting laws in other countries.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Pointless troll post

Hardly..Voting is a basic right. Restricting voting in any sense is anti freedom.

This idea of a test is only coming from power hungry tyrants. .you want control.

Are the insane allowed to vote and, if not, why not?
They would be considered incapable of rational thought.
I argue, thick people have the same disability.
If you can't understand the policies and likely outcome of them, you should not be allowed to decide.
Amendments can be amended again, as can voting laws in other countries.

Once again for the ohh so slow and stupid.... It would take an amendment to make it legal. AN amendment requires either an act of both Houses of Congress or 2/3rds of the States demanding it. Further to be approved requires a majority in 37 States to approve it.

I seriously doubt a majority of American voters would agree to limit their rights to vote.

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe we should test after reading this crap. This way you loose [sic] your right to vote

Really? His right to vote wouldn't be as tight as before?


You're a ******* moron.

 

[HUGGY]

I don't believe a test to vote will fly but maybe a test for everyone to become a fully endowed citizen might be better.

That would raise questions about what to do with learning challenged Americans and other people that for whatever reason could not pass a "citizenship test". But we already have to pass tests for say..driving and performing many jobs. Making it neccesary to understand some basics about how government works might not be a bad thing for our country. Allowing ignorant people to have a say in where we are heading as a nation has seemed to stall the gears of government and provided a safe place for scum that would take advantage of the ignorant for their own and not our countries benefit.

 

[Indofred]

Hardly..Voting is a basic right. Restricting voting in any sense is anti freedom.

This idea of a test is only coming from power hungry tyrants. .you want control.

Are the insane allowed to vote and, if not, why not?
They would be considered incapable of rational thought.
I argue, thick people have the same disability.
If you can't understand the policies and likely outcome of them, you should not be allowed to decide.
Amendments can be amended again, as can voting laws in other countries.

Once again for the ohh so slow and stupid.... It would take an amendment to make it legal. AN amendment requires either an act of both Houses of Congress or 2/3rds of the States demanding it. Further to be approved requires a majority in 37 States to approve it.

I seriously doubt a majority of American voters would agree to limit their rights to vote.

I didn't ask if it was possible; I asked if it was the right thing to do.

 

[Indofred]

I don't believe a test to vote will fly but maybe a test for everyone to become a fully endowed citizen might be better. .

In an old film, Starship troopers, people had to serve in the military to become a citizen.
I would disagree with that, but I strongly believe there should be no right to decide the future of a country if you are incapable of understanding the issues involved.

 

[MaxGrit]

I don't believe a test to vote will fly but maybe a test for everyone to become a fully endowed citizen might be better. .

In an old film, Starship troopers, people had to serve in the military to become a citizen.
I would disagree with that, but I strongly believe there should be no right to decide the future of a country if you are incapable of understanding the issues involved.

The book is a lot better. Heinlein's view on citizenship is logical and sensible.

Starship Troopers

". . . a political essay as well as a novel. Large portions of the book take place in classrooms, with Rico and other characters engaged in debates with their History and Moral Philosophy teacher, who is often thought to be speaking in Heinlein's voice.[15]

The overall theme of the book is that social responsibility requires being prepared to make individual sacrifice. Heinlein's Terran Federation is a limited democracy, with aspects of a meritocracy in regard to full citizenship, based on voluntarily assuming a responsibility for the common good. Suffrage can only be earned by those willing to serve their society by at least two years of volunteer Federal Service – "the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of, as Heinlein would later note, anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37 °C"[16] The Federation is required to find a place for anyone who desires to serve, regardless of his skill or aptitude (this also includes service ranging from teaching to dangerous non-military work such as serving as experimental medical test subjects to military service—such as Rico's Mobile Infantry).

There is an explicit contrast to the "democracies of the 20th century", which according to the novel, collapsed because "people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."[17]

Colonel Dubois teaches using the famous U.S. Declaration of Independence line concerning "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but life and liberty exist only if they are deliberately sought and, often, bought painfully by great effort and sacrifice."

 

[Indofred]

The overall theme of the book is that social responsibility requires being prepared to make individual sacrifice. Heinlein's Terran Federation is a limited democracy, with aspects of a meritocracy in regard to full citizenship, based on voluntarily assuming a responsibility for the common good. Suffrage can only be earned by those willing to serve their society by at least two years of volunteer Federal Service

I'm a Tory so I tend to run with the idea of an individual's obligation to their societies but wouldn't go as far as military service.
I do believe you should have the ability to understand a situation before you have the right to influence it and, I might even go as far to to suggest, anyone who has been unemployed and claiming any sort of benefit over the long term should loose the right to vote.

We have an obligation to society and, as in Starship troopers, if you don't help that society, you shouldn't have a say in it.

Your post reminded me of the great Gene Roddenberry, another sci-fi writer who's works commented on society of the day.
A black woman in a command position, a Russian when Russians were the enemy and the episode, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", where two men with black and white faces were battling because they believed the skin colours had to be on the correct side of the face or you were inferior - a massive dig at the stupidity of racism.
There are people with vision who write for Tv who would have been far better politicians than most of the lot we have today.
Hitch hikers, good old Douglas Adams, mentioned lizards being in power.
No one liked them but no one dare vote for anything else in case the wrong lizard got into power.
This reminds me of the chattering classes, all voting for whoever lies to them the best because they're too stupid to work out the truth.

I suspect Douglas would support my idea of an intelligence test before gaining the right to vote.

Back to Heinlein:

“Both for practical reasons and for mathematically verifiable moral reasons, authority and responsibility must be equal - else a balancing takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal potential. To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy. The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority... other than through the tragic logic of history... No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead - and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.”

I suspect another sci fi writer may like my idea.

 

[Indofred]

Of course, if they have to prove they're bright enough to be allowed to vote, Orwell will have to be rewritten.
Four legs good on a barn wall?

 

[Unkotare]

Why should you have to know Civics to vote?

All you need to know is who best represents your needs

A 'test' would certainly not pass constitutional muster, but don't voters need to understand our form of government and how it works to make an informed decision about who best represents their needs and what that even means?

Not really

Why not? Doesn't your attitude set the uninformed up to be manipulated or blatantly lied to without their being capable of defending themselves? It's everything people ***** about regarding government. Many people call for term limits when what we really need is an informed electorate. We'll still disagree, but there will be some reason behind it.

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm certainly not anti american and I would have no problem with a basic quiz. I am anti idiocy.

Other voters impact other Americans with their vote so I see no problem with making sure the vote is exercised responsibly.

Then you and others should have no problem with the idea that we can infringe on your right to own a gun.

I don't have a right to own a gun. The very lack of responsibility that I spoke of cost me that right.

Punt

 

[natstew]

The constitution says every citizen has a right to vote, therefore there should be no test unless the constitution is amended to make it so. However, everyone should have to show picture ID to prove they are a citizen to vote. This is a states decision to decide how voting is conducted.
If you have to show ID to buy cigarettes then you should also be able to show ID to vote, the only racists when it comes to this are the democrats for thinking minorities and poor are incapable of obtaining an ID.

I've looked so hard and can't find that in the Constitution, please give me the Arcticle or Amendment that says every citizen has the right to vote.

By the Constitution, Voting is a State's thing.

 

[natstew]

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.

Sounds great. If I lose my right to vote, I guess I also lose my right to pay taxes. No vote, no taxes.

I like this better: No Taxes, No Vote! PERIOD!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Sounds great. If I lose my right to vote, I guess I also lose my right to pay taxes. No vote, no taxes.

I like this better: No Taxes, No Vote! PERIOD!!

Better be specific, everyone pays taxes. And that's also unconstitutional but that won't bother you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The constitution says every citizen has a right to vote, therefore there should be no test unless the constitution is amended to make it so. However, everyone should have to show picture ID to prove they are a citizen to vote. This is a states decision to decide how voting is conducted.
If you have to show ID to buy cigarettes then you should also be able to show ID to vote, the only racists when it comes to this are the democrats for thinking minorities and poor are incapable of obtaining an ID.

I've looked so hard and can't find that in the Constitution, please give me the Arcticle or Amendment that says every citizen has the right to vote.

By the Constitution, Voting is a State's thing.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

n Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 118 U. S. 370, the Court referred to "the political franchise of voting" as a "fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights." Recently, in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 377 U. S. 561-562, we said,

"Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."

Harper v Virginia Board of Elections (1966)

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The constitution says every citizen has a right to vote, therefore there should be no test unless the constitution is amended to make it so. However, everyone should have to show picture ID to prove they are a citizen to vote. This is a states decision to decide how voting is conducted.
If you have to show ID to buy cigarettes then you should also be able to show ID to vote, the only racists when it comes to this are the democrats for thinking minorities and poor are incapable of obtaining an ID.

I've looked so hard and can't find that in the Constitution, please give me the Arcticle or Amendment that says every citizen has the right to vote.

By the Constitution, Voting is a State's thing.

That voting is a ‘state’s thing’ is also limited by the Constitution, where the Constitution codifies a fundamental right to vote, a right that is Federal in nature protected from state interference by the Federal Constitution:

Nothing in the Constitution or The Federalist Papers…supports the idea of state interference with the most basic relation between the National Government and its citizens, the selection of legislative representatives. Indeed, even though the Constitution uses the qualifications for voters of the most numerous branch of the States' own legislatures to set the qualifications of federal electors, Art. I, §2, cl. 1, when these electors vote, we have recognized that they act in a federal capacity and exercise a federal right. Addressing this principle in Ex parte Yarbrough the Court stated as follows: "[T]he right to vote for a member of Congress" is an "office . . . created by that Constitution, and by that alone. . . . It is not true, therefore, that electors for members of Congress owe their right to vote to the State law in any sense which makes the exercise of the right to depend exclusively on the law of the State." 110 U. S., at 663-664. We made the same point in United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315 (1941), when we said, "[T]he right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted at Congressional elections . . . is a right secured by the Constitution" and "is secured against the action of individuals as well as of states."

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).