Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote

[paddymurphy]

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]
The constitutional rights of citizens are not of great concern to him.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is a plague of gun violence in this country.

Nope. There is a plague of human violence in this country. Dispose of the thugs, lock up the crazies, and you will solve 90% of the problem.

There is a constitutional right to possess firearms. There is no such guarantee of the right to vote. Conflating the two is as error.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Should we amend the Constitution to compensate?

 

[Kondor3]

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.

The constitutional rights of citizens are not of great concern to him.

Au contraire... the Constitutional rights of citizens are very important to me... but we already limit voting in some aspects... this is just another aspect.

And it prevents the United States from committing financial suicide by reversing the trend towards unsustainable Nanny Statism. Win-Win.

 

[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...

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

The elderly, the infirmed are just too lazy to find work? Is that your view of who gets public assistance? Are you sure, or are you subject to make an argument based on anecdote?

 

[Kondor3]

...The elderly, the infirmed are just too lazy to find work? Is that your view of who gets public assistance? Are you sure, or are you subject to make an argument based on anecdote?

Nope. You're coming into this sequence late in the game. Earlier posts referenced Chronic Layabouts as those to be 'recused' from voting due to conflicts of interest, with good provision for Exempt Categories of SNAP-TANF-Medicaid-Similar recipients, leaving their voting rights intact.

 

[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.

Should we amend the Constitution to compensate?

Knock yerself out.

 

[Truth2Know]

...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.

I made a general suggestion that those paying more to support our government should have more of a say in how it's run than those who pay less or don't pay at all. However, I did think about it enough to propose what I feel is an equitable and implementable system. You may have not had time to review all of my posts so I'll summarize.

People are qualified to vote in any given year by the taxes paid in the previous year. Taxes include federal income tax and social insurance taxes. A percentage of the average total tax paid per person (all taxes collected divided by the number of tax payers) is used to determine how much of a vote a person gets. I used 50% of the average tax paid to qualify for 1 vote (the most any one person can have), but it could be any percentage. If a person pays less than this target, they get a fraction of a vote rounded up to the nearest tenth. So, paying .43% of target gets a person .5 of a vote. Note that if a person works at all and pays social security tax, he/she would get .1 vote. They're working, they're trying, they're voting.

Got lucky and hit the Lotto? Guess, what - you're paying income taxes and so you're voting.

The data to determine who votes and at what level is already in the IRS database. It should be easy to crunch the numbers if the system is not hacked by China or the folks who set up the Obamacare exchanges are not involved. Getting paid under the table and not paying taxes? Making money from illegal activities? So sorry, you are not helping to pay the country's expenses, so no vote.

As Kondor3 said, there is no fundamental right to vote. The people in charge (us) determine who has the privilege of voting. I feel it makes more sense to let people vote in a manner that is somewhat commensurate with their contribution.

Again, consider the voting system used by companies: one share gets one vote. If you have 1,000 shares, you get 1,000 votes. It's ludicrous to give a shareholder with an investment of 1,000 shares and a shareholder with 10 shares one vote each. They have a different stake, they should have a different number of votes. My proposal does not go to this extreme with political voting because the super rich would have way too much power. I think my proposal is fair and totally American. Something like it should be implemented to improve the quality of the electorate before the entire country suffers more harm.

God bless America.

 

[Montrovant]

...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.

I made a general suggestion that those paying more to support our government should have more of a say in how it's run than those who pay less or don't pay at all. However, I did think about it enough to propose what I feel is an equitable and implementable system. You may have not had time to review all of my posts so I'll summarize.

People are qualified to vote in any given year by the taxes paid in the previous year. Taxes include federal income tax and social insurance taxes. A percentage of the average total tax paid per person (all taxes collected divided by the number of tax payers) is used to determine how much of a vote a person gets. I used 50% of the average tax paid to qualify for 1 vote (the most any one person can have), but it could be any percentage. If a person pays less than this target, they get a fraction of a vote rounded up to the nearest tenth. So, paying .43% of target gets a person .5 of a vote. Note that if a person works at all and pays social security tax, he/she would get .1 vote. They're working, they're trying, they're voting.

Got lucky and hit the Lotto? Guess, what - you're paying income taxes and so you're voting.

The data to determine who votes and at what level is already in the IRS database. It should be easy to crunch the numbers if the system is not hacked by China or the folks who set up the Obamacare exchanges are not involved. Getting paid under the table and not paying taxes? Making money from illegal activities? So sorry, you are not helping to pay the country's expenses, so no vote.

As Kondor3 said, there is no fundamental right to vote. The people in charge (us) determine who has the privilege of voting. I feel it makes more sense to let people vote in a manner that is somewhat commensurate with their contribution.

Again, consider the voting system used by companies: one share gets one vote. If you have 1,000 shares, you get 1,000 votes. It's ludicrous to give a shareholder with an investment of 1,000 shares and a shareholder with 10 shares one vote each. They have a different stake, they should have a different number of votes. My proposal does not go to this extreme with political voting because the super rich would have way too much power. I think my proposal is fair and totally American. Something like it should be implemented to improve the quality of the electorate before the entire country suffers more harm.

God bless America.

Perhaps, if a country were a business, your analogy with shareholders would make more sense. However, as a country most certainly is not a business, it falls flat.

As has been pointed out already in this thread, how much money one makes is not a good indicator of whether a person is a productive member of society. You yourself have given the example of a lottery winner. Somehow, in your mind, the luck of winning the lottery equates to a person deserving a vote in how the country is run, whereas someone without that luck does not. So if, say, a homeless veteran, who has fought and perhaps been injured for the country in the past, wants to vote, they get nothing. Someone who's been living off of welfare who happens to get lucky with a lottery ticket, on the other hand, is worthy of a full representative voice. And this is the proposal you call fair and totally American?

This idea that money equates to contribution to society, and the greater the amount of money, the greater the contribution, is ridiculous. It is possible to be rich and little more than a leech on society, it is possible to be poor and help people all around you. Stay at home parents have no income and would have no vote in your system. Bernie Madoff, on the other hand, would have had a full vote until his conviction.

 

[Truth2Know]

Calm yourself, Princess, or you'll soil your panties...

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.

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.

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?

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.

I made a general suggestion that those paying more to support our government should have more of a say in how it's run than those who pay less or don't pay at all. However, I did think about it enough to propose what I feel is an equitable and implementable system. You may have not had time to review all of my posts so I'll summarize.

People are qualified to vote in any given year by the taxes paid in the previous year. Taxes include federal income tax and social insurance taxes. A percentage of the average total tax paid per person (all taxes collected divided by the number of tax payers) is used to determine how much of a vote a person gets. I used 50% of the average tax paid to qualify for 1 vote (the most any one person can have), but it could be any percentage. If a person pays less than this target, they get a fraction of a vote rounded up to the nearest tenth. So, paying .43% of target gets a person .5 of a vote. Note that if a person works at all and pays social security tax, he/she would get .1 vote. They're working, they're trying, they're voting.

Got lucky and hit the Lotto? Guess, what - you're paying income taxes and so you're voting.

The data to determine who votes and at what level is already in the IRS database. It should be easy to crunch the numbers if the system is not hacked by China or the folks who set up the Obamacare exchanges are not involved. Getting paid under the table and not paying taxes? Making money from illegal activities? So sorry, you are not helping to pay the country's expenses, so no vote.

As Kondor3 said, there is no fundamental right to vote. The people in charge (us) determine who has the privilege of voting. I feel it makes more sense to let people vote in a manner that is somewhat commensurate with their contribution.

Again, consider the voting system used by companies: one share gets one vote. If you have 1,000 shares, you get 1,000 votes. It's ludicrous to give a shareholder with an investment of 1,000 shares and a shareholder with 10 shares one vote each. They have a different stake, they should have a different number of votes. My proposal does not go to this extreme with political voting because the super rich would have way too much power. I think my proposal is fair and totally American. Something like it should be implemented to improve the quality of the electorate before the entire country suffers more harm.

God bless America.

Perhaps, if a country were a business, your analogy with shareholders would make more sense. However, as a country most certainly is not a business, it falls flat.

As has been pointed out already in this thread, how much money one makes is not a good indicator of whether a person is a productive member of society. You yourself have given the example of a lottery winner. Somehow, in your mind, the luck of winning the lottery equates to a person deserving a vote in how the country is run, whereas someone without that luck does not. So if, say, a homeless veteran, who has fought and perhaps been injured for the country in the past, wants to vote, they get nothing. Someone who's been living off of welfare who happens to get lucky with a lottery ticket, on the other hand, is worthy of a full representative voice. And this is the proposal you call fair and totally American?

This idea that money equates to contribution to society, and the greater the amount of money, the greater the contribution, is ridiculous. It is possible to be rich and little more than a leech on society, it is possible to be poor and help people all around you. Stay at home parents have no income and would have no vote in your system. Bernie Madoff, on the other hand, would have had a full vote until his conviction.

Money is not an indicator of how much of a contributor a person is to society. The amount a person pays in taxes, however, is a direct, objective measure of how much financial support the person supplies to America.

I did not initiate the example of a lottery winner. I merely responded to one of the scenarios paddymurphy suggested.

Many people choose to be social workers, forgoing higher salaries they could enjoy in other professions in order to serve others. More power to them. However, they are working, earning a salary, and paying taxes. Even at their modest salary, it would be easy to select the percentage that gives them one full vote, as they should have. My objection is to giving people who have the ability to work, but don't and are living off the dole, the ability to vote for politicians who make their parasitic way of life possible.

Let's consider your stay at home parent. Are you saying one person stays home and the spouse works? If so, a joint return is filed, each votes based on where the taxes paid divided by two puts them. Is this a single parent who chooses to stay at home to raise the kid(s)? If they pay no taxes, then they would not get a vote. If they don't have savings or others helping them financially, perhaps them are depending on the generosity of the government (us) to live. Not giving them a vote is fair since we are the ones paying taxes. Allowing those that get money without paying into the system to influence how much assistance money they get is the road to serfdom.

My proposal is quintessentially American. Work for what you get. Pay your taxes, vote your conscience. Don't complain when working people, through the government, give you assistance when you experience hard times. Say, "Thank you." and try to better yourself.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

I made a general suggestion that those paying more to support our government should have more of a say in how it's run than those who pay less or don't pay at all. However, I did think about it enough to propose what I feel is an equitable and implementable system. You may have not had time to review all of my posts so I'll summarize.

People are qualified to vote in any given year by the taxes paid in the previous year. Taxes include federal income tax and social insurance taxes. A percentage of the average total tax paid per person (all taxes collected divided by the number of tax payers) is used to determine how much of a vote a person gets. I used 50% of the average tax paid to qualify for 1 vote (the most any one person can have), but it could be any percentage. If a person pays less than this target, they get a fraction of a vote rounded up to the nearest tenth. So, paying .43% of target gets a person .5 of a vote. Note that if a person works at all and pays social security tax, he/she would get .1 vote. They're working, they're trying, they're voting.

Got lucky and hit the Lotto? Guess, what - you're paying income taxes and so you're voting.

The data to determine who votes and at what level is already in the IRS database. It should be easy to crunch the numbers if the system is not hacked by China or the folks who set up the Obamacare exchanges are not involved. Getting paid under the table and not paying taxes? Making money from illegal activities? So sorry, you are not helping to pay the country's expenses, so no vote.

As Kondor3 said, there is no fundamental right to vote. The people in charge (us) determine who has the privilege of voting. I feel it makes more sense to let people vote in a manner that is somewhat commensurate with their contribution.

Again, consider the voting system used by companies: one share gets one vote. If you have 1,000 shares, you get 1,000 votes. It's ludicrous to give a shareholder with an investment of 1,000 shares and a shareholder with 10 shares one vote each. They have a different stake, they should have a different number of votes. My proposal does not go to this extreme with political voting because the super rich would have way too much power. I think my proposal is fair and totally American. Something like it should be implemented to improve the quality of the electorate before the entire country suffers more harm.

God bless America.

Perhaps, if a country were a business, your analogy with shareholders would make more sense. However, as a country most certainly is not a business, it falls flat.

As has been pointed out already in this thread, how much money one makes is not a good indicator of whether a person is a productive member of society. You yourself have given the example of a lottery winner. Somehow, in your mind, the luck of winning the lottery equates to a person deserving a vote in how the country is run, whereas someone without that luck does not. So if, say, a homeless veteran, who has fought and perhaps been injured for the country in the past, wants to vote, they get nothing. Someone who's been living off of welfare who happens to get lucky with a lottery ticket, on the other hand, is worthy of a full representative voice. And this is the proposal you call fair and totally American?

This idea that money equates to contribution to society, and the greater the amount of money, the greater the contribution, is ridiculous. It is possible to be rich and little more than a leech on society, it is possible to be poor and help people all around you. Stay at home parents have no income and would have no vote in your system. Bernie Madoff, on the other hand, would have had a full vote until his conviction.

Money is not an indicator of how much of a contributor a person is to society. The amount a person pays in taxes, however, is a direct, objective measure of how much financial support the person supplies to America.

I did not initiate the example of a lottery winner. I merely responded to one of the scenarios paddymurphy suggested.

Many people choose to be social workers, forgoing higher salaries they could enjoy in other professions in order to serve others. More power to them. However, they are working, earning a salary, and paying taxes. Even at their modest salary, it would be easy to select the percentage that gives them one full vote, as they should have. My objection is to giving people who have the ability to work, but don't and are living off the dole, the ability to vote for politicians who make their parasitic way of life possible.

Let's consider your stay at home parent. Are you saying one person stays home and the spouse works? If so, a joint return is filed, each votes based on where the taxes paid divided by two puts them. Is this a single parent who chooses to stay at home to raise the kid(s)? If they pay no taxes, then they would not get a vote. If they don't have savings or others helping them financially, perhaps them are depending on the generosity of the government (us) to live. Not giving them a vote is fair since we are the ones paying taxes. Allowing those that get money without paying into the system to influence how much assistance money they get is the road to serfdom.

My proposal is quintessentially American. Work for what you get. Pay your taxes, vote your conscience. Don't complain when working people, through the government, give you assistance when you experience hard times. Say, "Thank you." and try to better yourself.

I notice you ignored my hypothetical about a homeless veteran. Someone who doesn't pay taxes, maybe is on some sort of assistance, but fought and perhaps was seriously injured for the country, yet you'd take away their right to vote.

It seems that for some of you voting and representation are entirely about money. I find that as sad as someone voting simply to receive more government assistance.

Why not look at reform in welfare programs rather than disenfranchising other American citizens?

 

[Truth2Know]

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.

I made a general suggestion that those paying more to support our government should have more of a say in how it's run than those who pay less or don't pay at all. However, I did think about it enough to propose what I feel is an equitable and implementable system. You may have not had time to review all of my posts so I'll summarize.

People are qualified to vote in any given year by the taxes paid in the previous year. Taxes include federal income tax and social insurance taxes. A percentage of the average total tax paid per person (all taxes collected divided by the number of tax payers) is used to determine how much of a vote a person gets. I used 50% of the average tax paid to qualify for 1 vote (the most any one person can have), but it could be any percentage. If a person pays less than this target, they get a fraction of a vote rounded up to the nearest tenth. So, paying .43% of target gets a person .5 of a vote. Note that if a person works at all and pays social security tax, he/she would get .1 vote. They're working, they're trying, they're voting.

Got lucky and hit the Lotto? Guess, what - you're paying income taxes and so you're voting.

The data to determine who votes and at what level is already in the IRS database. It should be easy to crunch the numbers if the system is not hacked by China or the folks who set up the Obamacare exchanges are not involved. Getting paid under the table and not paying taxes? Making money from illegal activities? So sorry, you are not helping to pay the country's expenses, so no vote.

As Kondor3 said, there is no fundamental right to vote. The people in charge (us) determine who has the privilege of voting. I feel it makes more sense to let people vote in a manner that is somewhat commensurate with their contribution.

Again, consider the voting system used by companies: one share gets one vote. If you have 1,000 shares, you get 1,000 votes. It's ludicrous to give a shareholder with an investment of 1,000 shares and a shareholder with 10 shares one vote each. They have a different stake, they should have a different number of votes. My proposal does not go to this extreme with political voting because the super rich would have way too much power. I think my proposal is fair and totally American. Something like it should be implemented to improve the quality of the electorate before the entire country suffers more harm.

God bless America.

Perhaps, if a country were a business, your analogy with shareholders would make more sense. However, as a country most certainly is not a business, it falls flat.

As has been pointed out already in this thread, how much money one makes is not a good indicator of whether a person is a productive member of society. You yourself have given the example of a lottery winner. Somehow, in your mind, the luck of winning the lottery equates to a person deserving a vote in how the country is run, whereas someone without that luck does not. So if, say, a homeless veteran, who has fought and perhaps been injured for the country in the past, wants to vote, they get nothing. Someone who's been living off of welfare who happens to get lucky with a lottery ticket, on the other hand, is worthy of a full representative voice. And this is the proposal you call fair and totally American?

This idea that money equates to contribution to society, and the greater the amount of money, the greater the contribution, is ridiculous. It is possible to be rich and little more than a leech on society, it is possible to be poor and help people all around you. Stay at home parents have no income and would have no vote in your system. Bernie Madoff, on the other hand, would have had a full vote until his conviction.

Money is not an indicator of how much of a contributor a person is to society. The amount a person pays in taxes, however, is a direct, objective measure of how much financial support the person supplies to America.

I did not initiate the example of a lottery winner. I merely responded to one of the scenarios paddymurphy suggested.

Many people choose to be social workers, forgoing higher salaries they could enjoy in other professions in order to serve others. More power to them. However, they are working, earning a salary, and paying taxes. Even at their modest salary, it would be easy to select the percentage that gives them one full vote, as they should have. My objection is to giving people who have the ability to work, but don't and are living off the dole, the ability to vote for politicians who make their parasitic way of life possible.

Let's consider your stay at home parent. Are you saying one person stays home and the spouse works? If so, a joint return is filed, each votes based on where the taxes paid divided by two puts them. Is this a single parent who chooses to stay at home to raise the kid(s)? If they pay no taxes, then they would not get a vote. If they don't have savings or others helping them financially, perhaps them are depending on the generosity of the government (us) to live. Not giving them a vote is fair since we are the ones paying taxes. Allowing those that get money without paying into the system to influence how much assistance money they get is the road to serfdom.

My proposal is quintessentially American. Work for what you get. Pay your taxes, vote your conscience. Don't complain when working people, through the government, give you assistance when you experience hard times. Say, "Thank you." and try to better yourself.

I notice you ignored my hypothetical about a homeless veteran. Someone who doesn't pay taxes, maybe is on some sort of assistance, but fought and perhaps was seriously injured for the country, yet you'd take away their right to vote.

It seems that for some of you voting and representation are entirely about money. I find that as sad as someone voting simply to receive more government assistance.

Why not look at reform in welfare programs rather than disenfranchising other American citizens?

We could look at hypothetical situations ad infinitum and it would not change the basic argument. My answer to this special case, though, is that I appreciate what the homeless veteran did. However, the veteran was merely performing a job of their choosing. While doing it, pay was received, taxes paid, and the service person voted. Now they are discharged, have PTSD, and are homeless and jobless. No taxes paid, no vote. The VA should be taking care of this person. Why in the world is Wounded Warriors needed anyway? Don't we take care of our own?

Reforms of VA practices and other welfare programs are needed. These reforms should be undertaken by politicians elected by compassionate, working/tax paying Americans. They are in the best position to make the tough decisions that benefit all Americans.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

I made a general suggestion that those paying more to support our government should have more of a say in how it's run than those who pay less or don't pay at all. However, I did think about it enough to propose what I feel is an equitable and implementable system. You may have not had time to review all of my posts so I'll summarize.

People are qualified to vote in any given year by the taxes paid in the previous year. Taxes include federal income tax and social insurance taxes. A percentage of the average total tax paid per person (all taxes collected divided by the number of tax payers) is used to determine how much of a vote a person gets. I used 50% of the average tax paid to qualify for 1 vote (the most any one person can have), but it could be any percentage. If a person pays less than this target, they get a fraction of a vote rounded up to the nearest tenth. So, paying .43% of target gets a person .5 of a vote. Note that if a person works at all and pays social security tax, he/she would get .1 vote. They're working, they're trying, they're voting.

Got lucky and hit the Lotto? Guess, what - you're paying income taxes and so you're voting.

The data to determine who votes and at what level is already in the IRS database. It should be easy to crunch the numbers if the system is not hacked by China or the folks who set up the Obamacare exchanges are not involved. Getting paid under the table and not paying taxes? Making money from illegal activities? So sorry, you are not helping to pay the country's expenses, so no vote.

As Kondor3 said, there is no fundamental right to vote. The people in charge (us) determine who has the privilege of voting. I feel it makes more sense to let people vote in a manner that is somewhat commensurate with their contribution.

Again, consider the voting system used by companies: one share gets one vote. If you have 1,000 shares, you get 1,000 votes. It's ludicrous to give a shareholder with an investment of 1,000 shares and a shareholder with 10 shares one vote each. They have a different stake, they should have a different number of votes. My proposal does not go to this extreme with political voting because the super rich would have way too much power. I think my proposal is fair and totally American. Something like it should be implemented to improve the quality of the electorate before the entire country suffers more harm.

God bless America.

Perhaps, if a country were a business, your analogy with shareholders would make more sense. However, as a country most certainly is not a business, it falls flat.

As has been pointed out already in this thread, how much money one makes is not a good indicator of whether a person is a productive member of society. You yourself have given the example of a lottery winner. Somehow, in your mind, the luck of winning the lottery equates to a person deserving a vote in how the country is run, whereas someone without that luck does not. So if, say, a homeless veteran, who has fought and perhaps been injured for the country in the past, wants to vote, they get nothing. Someone who's been living off of welfare who happens to get lucky with a lottery ticket, on the other hand, is worthy of a full representative voice. And this is the proposal you call fair and totally American?

This idea that money equates to contribution to society, and the greater the amount of money, the greater the contribution, is ridiculous. It is possible to be rich and little more than a leech on society, it is possible to be poor and help people all around you. Stay at home parents have no income and would have no vote in your system. Bernie Madoff, on the other hand, would have had a full vote until his conviction.

Money is not an indicator of how much of a contributor a person is to society. The amount a person pays in taxes, however, is a direct, objective measure of how much financial support the person supplies to America.

I did not initiate the example of a lottery winner. I merely responded to one of the scenarios paddymurphy suggested.

Many people choose to be social workers, forgoing higher salaries they could enjoy in other professions in order to serve others. More power to them. However, they are working, earning a salary, and paying taxes. Even at their modest salary, it would be easy to select the percentage that gives them one full vote, as they should have. My objection is to giving people who have the ability to work, but don't and are living off the dole, the ability to vote for politicians who make their parasitic way of life possible.

Let's consider your stay at home parent. Are you saying one person stays home and the spouse works? If so, a joint return is filed, each votes based on where the taxes paid divided by two puts them. Is this a single parent who chooses to stay at home to raise the kid(s)? If they pay no taxes, then they would not get a vote. If they don't have savings or others helping them financially, perhaps them are depending on the generosity of the government (us) to live. Not giving them a vote is fair since we are the ones paying taxes. Allowing those that get money without paying into the system to influence how much assistance money they get is the road to serfdom.

My proposal is quintessentially American. Work for what you get. Pay your taxes, vote your conscience. Don't complain when working people, through the government, give you assistance when you experience hard times. Say, "Thank you." and try to better yourself.

I notice you ignored my hypothetical about a homeless veteran. Someone who doesn't pay taxes, maybe is on some sort of assistance, but fought and perhaps was seriously injured for the country, yet you'd take away their right to vote.

It seems that for some of you voting and representation are entirely about money. I find that as sad as someone voting simply to receive more government assistance.

Why not look at reform in welfare programs rather than disenfranchising other American citizens?

We could look at hypothetical situations ad infinitum and it would not change the basic argument. My answer to this special case, though, is that I appreciate what the homeless veteran did. However, the veteran was merely performing a job of their choosing. While doing it, pay was received, taxes paid, and the service person voted. Now they are discharged, have PTSD, and are homeless and jobless. No taxes paid, no vote. The VA should be taking care of this person. Why in the world is Wounded Warriors needed anyway? Don't we take care of our own?

Reforms of VA practices and other welfare programs are needed. These reforms should be undertaken by politicians elected by compassionate, working/tax paying Americans. They are in the best position to make the tough decisions that benefit all Americans.

Well clearly you consider money the only important consideration when it comes to deciding the course of the nation. I disagree with that. I'm glad that, for now, money is not a deciding factor in who can or cannot vote.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a plague of gun violence in this country.

Nope. There is a plague of human violence in this country. Dispose of the thugs, lock up the crazies, and you will solve 90% of the problem.

There is a constitutional right to possess firearms. There is no such guarantee of the right to vote. Conflating the two is as error.

At least you're consistent at being wrong:

"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."

Reynolds v. Sims

“Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.”

Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections

There is in fact a fundamental right to vote.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is a plague of gun violence in this country.

Nope. There is a plague of human violence in this country. Dispose of the thugs, lock up the crazies, and you will solve 90% of the problem.

There is a constitutional right to possess firearms. There is no such guarantee of the right to vote. Conflating the two is as error.

At least you're consistent at being wrong:

"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."

Reynolds v. Sims

“Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.”

Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections

There is in fact a fundamental right to vote.

Fine, so why not provide the education on laws and democratic process and training needed so people have a FULLY INFORMED vote. If people like my coworkers don't know the difference between state laws and federal laws, and what is required to change a bad law, that makes a difference in voting! Some things DO need to be taught as part of exercising voting and other democratic rights.

C_Clayton_Jones
You can always claim gun rights under the Constitution.
But with that comes knowledge of the laws, such as due process, that need to be followed, not violated!
People need gun safety training that goes hand in hand, the rights with the responsibilities, to be lawful.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is a plague of gun violence in this country.

Nope. There is a plague of human violence in this country. Dispose of the thugs, lock up the crazies, and you will solve 90% of the problem.

There is a constitutional right to possess firearms. There is no such guarantee of the right to vote. Conflating the two is as error.

At least you're consistent at being wrong:

"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."

Reynolds v. Sims

“Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.”

Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections

There is in fact a fundamental right to vote.

Fine, so why not provide the education on laws and democratic process and training needed so people have a FULLY INFORMED vote. If people like my coworkers don't know the difference between state laws and federal laws, and what is required to change a bad law, that makes a difference in voting! Some things DO need to be taught as part of exercising voting and other democratic rights.

C_Clayton_Jones
You can always claim gun rights under the Constitution.
But with that comes knowledge of the laws, such as due process, that need to be followed, not violated!
People need gun safety training that goes hand in hand, the rights with the responsibilities, to be lawful.

"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."

Reynolds v Sims concerned the lack of reapportionment in Alabama over a 60 year period. The decision conferred no "right-to-vote."

“Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.”

The issue was the "invidious" nature of the tax. The Equal Protection clause does not confer a general right to vote, nor does it preclude all requirements in order to exercise the privilege.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is a plague of gun violence in this country.

Nope. There is a plague of human violence in this country. Dispose of the thugs, lock up the crazies, and you will solve 90% of the problem.

There is a constitutional right to possess firearms. There is no such guarantee of the right to vote. Conflating the two is as error.

At least you're consistent at being wrong:

"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."

Reynolds v. Sims

“Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.”

Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections

There is in fact a fundamental right to vote.

Fine, so why not provide the education on laws and democratic process and training needed so people have a FULLY INFORMED vote. If people like my coworkers don't know the difference between state laws and federal laws, and what is required to change a bad law, that makes a difference in voting! Some things DO need to be taught as part of exercising voting and other democratic rights.

C_Clayton_Jones
You can always claim gun rights under the Constitution.
But with that comes knowledge of the laws, such as due process, that need to be followed, not violated!
People need gun safety training that goes hand in hand, the rights with the responsibilities, to be lawful.

"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."

Reynolds v Sims concerned the lack of reapportionment in Alabama over a 60 year period. The decision conferred no "right-to-vote."

“Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.”

The issue was the "invidious" nature of the tax. The Equal Protection clause does not confer a general right to vote, nor does it preclude all requirements in order to exercise the privilege.

Dear Billy_Kinetta
And again, the Constitution guarantees the Right to Bear Arms,
but someone who knows how to use an automatic rifle is not going to be equal with someone who doesn't know how to shoot a gun.

The Constitution guarantees the right to counsel, but someone armed with knowledge and experience with the laws, or has money to buy the best lawyers, is not going to be equal with someone without the same.

Do you get it now???

You can argue about the rights we have by law,
but if we don't have means of enforcement and defense
we are not going to be equally protected.

That's why we have bullying going on in courts and legislatures and media. Whoever grabs ground first, and puts the other side on defense, has unequal advantage so people are not protected equally.

If we based decisions on consensus, and rulings did not stand at all unless people agreed, then we might have a chance at equality because the smallest no would still have equal weight as the majority.

There is more to the right to defense, voting, and equal protection of the laws. We have to respect the equal right to consent and dissent for all people, or our votes mean nothing if bigger interests can buy out the process and overrule and override all other input from representation.

Voting is not enough. I agree we need to defend that, I'm saying we need to change the entire dynamic around voting and citizen participation in govt to protect our interests equally. Voting is only one part of that, we need to do a lot more!!!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Dear Billy_Kinetta
And again, the Constitution guarantees the Right to Bear Arms,
but someone who knows how to use an automatic rifle is not going to be equal with someone who doesn't know how to shoot a gun.

The Constitution guarantees the right to counsel, but someone armed with knowledge and experience with the laws, or has money to buy the best lawyers, is not going to be equal with someone without the same.

Do you get it now???

You can argue about the rights we have by law,
but if we don't have means of enforcement and defense
we are not going to be equally protected.

That's why we have bullying going on in courts and legislatures and media. Whoever grabs ground first, and puts the other side on defense, has unequal advantage so people are not protected equally.

If we based decisions on consensus, and rulings did not stand at all unless people agreed, then we might have a chance at equality because the smallest no would still have equal weight as the majority.

There is more to the right to defense, voting, and equal protection of the laws. We have to respect the equal right to consent and dissent for all people, or our votes mean nothing if bigger interests can buy out the process and overrule and override all other input from representation.

Voting is not enough. I agree we need to defend that, I'm saying we need to change the entire dynamic around voting and citizen participation in govt to protect our interests equally. Voting is only one part of that, we need to do a lot more!!!

Equal does not mean same.

My concern is that the Constitution is written in stone. It should be taught at all grade levels and is the law of the land that must be followed to the letter if the Republic is to survive.

We are not a nation of simple consensus. If we were the chances that slavery would have survived increase. We are a nation of law. There is a process to make changes. It was intentionally made difficult. Legislation and executive order cannot legally modify the Constitution.

As to equality, yes all people are born equal, and remain equal before the law, but do not remain equal in terms of intelligence, talent, or personal drive and ambition. An educated, moral man is certainly superior to an uneducated, immoral one.

Remember the Founders were also highly educated white, rich elites. The 1% of their time.

 

[Dante]

Montrovant

...
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.
...

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.

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.

 

[Dante]

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.

"Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is actually 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." -- maybe you misunderstood, maybe I was not as clear as I could have been.

The argument about the trend, the progression has always been based on an appeal to the founding generation ratifying documents with 'equal rights' enshrined -- this and other concepts. Now, look at what Dante actually wrote in the quoted text in this post: "Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is actually 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."

The foundation of your appeal is not to the trend or the progression, but to the founding generation's use of terms like "natural rights, equal rights..."

and herein lies the dissociative conflict: Past generations did not stick with how the framers viewed representation, yet many like you say this generation must stick with the recent ones of the past?

Consciously or not, appealing to an authority with what amounts to ignoring the whole history is at best -- flawed.

Why should the current generation have to follow others?