Graduated voting rights - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Graduated voting rights

  1. #11
    Hell, I'd be satisfied if a legal citizen held a job and could read and speak the English language. But, that's just me...
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation That is why it is a what if

    That is why it is a what if. It is supposed to cause thought processes to take place.

    Personally I believe all ballots should be printed in English only at the 8th grade level.

    If you can not read english you should not be able to vote.

    i also believe that all military ballots should be counted due to the service these men and women put forth,a blank check payable up to and including their life.
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    That is why it is a what if. It is supposed to cause thought processes to take place.

    Personally I believe all ballots should be printed in English only at the 8th grade level.

    If you can not read english you should not be able to vote.

    i also believe that all military ballots should be counted due to the service these men and women put forth,a blank check payable up to and including their life.
    Your points are all good, Festus, just me being my usual smartass self. Certainly thought-provoking and I totally agree on the military ballots. I'd be more than happy to put some qualifiers on the privilege to vote, just as the Founders did.
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  5. Well, it seems the nay sayers are in the group of "well, I know this person who is really good but doesn't qualify, so the idea is bad or needs to be changed".

    Or

    "The rich people will vote only for the stuff to make themselver richer and scew everyone else over"

    Well, right now the least successful people in the society are making the decisions in the voting booths (people who will vote for the ones who will give them the biggest handout). Unless this changes, we are doomed. I will take just about any criteria, as long as everyone has the opportunity (no guarantee of success) to earn the "right" to vote. I, personally, would prefer the successful to be making the decisions rather than the failures, but that;s just me.

    I once proposed we made criteria for choosing our candidates, no criminal records (who wants a criminal running the country?), credit rating of at least 750 (if you can't handle your own money, why should I trust you to handle mine?), and no lawyers (because of the way they are trained to think). Everyone had an exception.

    Well, no system is perfect, deserving people are going to get screwed in every system. I was never promised life is fair. But, if we get bogged down in the exceptions, no progress can be made. Because there are always exceptions...........
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #15
    Our system is broken, but rushing into a change is probably not a good idea. At this point we're discussing -- not writing a bill -- so all exceptions and complaints have to be identified and addressed.

    Voting must be perceived to be fair or the people affected will not be satisfied with the results. That's one reason there's so much discontent in the US today -- people know the situation has become SNAFU (the hidden frightening word in acronym haters need to go crazy now).

    Whatever modifications may be adopted need to follow the Constitution and still be acceptable to the population as a whole. If you want to limit voting to educated men with at least 1 acre of property you're wasting everybody's time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfling68 View Post
    Well, it seems the nay sayers are in the group of "well, I know this person who is really good but doesn't qualify, so the idea is bad or needs to be changed".

    Or

    "The rich people will vote only for the stuff to make themselver richer and scew everyone else over"

    Well, right now the least successful people in the society are making the decisions in the voting booths (people who will vote for the ones who will give them the biggest handout). Unless this changes, we are doomed. I will take just about any criteria, as long as everyone has the opportunity (no guarantee of success) to earn the "right" to vote. I, personally, would prefer the successful to be making the decisions rather than the failures, but that;s just me.

    I once proposed we made criteria for choosing our candidates, no criminal records (who wants a criminal running the country?), credit rating of at least 750 (if you can't handle your own money, why should I trust you to handle mine?), and no lawyers (because of the way they are trained to think). Everyone had an exception.

    Well, no system is perfect, deserving people are going to get screwed in every system. I was never promised life is fair. But, if we get bogged down in the exceptions, no progress can be made. Because there are always exceptions...........
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    It would be one thing to have a point system for a thresholded right to vote at all and another thing entirely to have a point system for magnifying the rights to vote of those more responsible, more highly qualified to wield the power of state.

    To say you have to have 3 out of 5 points in order to vote at all will be to invite a horde of people who could evince 2 out of 5 points but which everyone outside of the point system would agree the 2/5 people should vote. But, if you say both the 3/5 person and the 2/5 person can vote, but that the 3/5 person, by virtue of their greater responsibility and qualifications has 3 votes to cast for any given race, while the 2/5 person only has 2 votes to cast, then they both get a say, and a whole lot of 2/5 people can still overwhelm the votes of a smaller number of 3/5 people, but it would make it harder.

    In the case of a population of equal number 2/5 people and 3/5 people, if all of the 3/5 people voted one way and all of the 2/5 people voted the other, under the simplistic Democratic voting system we have now, we would have a deadlock. Under Proportional Point Voting System (PPVS), the 3/5 points people would win over the 2/5 points people by a 3:2 ratio of votes cast, even though the populations are equal.

    This makes sense, but I have to question its efficacy.

    Under a PPVS, there will necessarily be more 1/5 people than 2/5 people. There will be more 2/5 people than 3/5 people, and more 3/5 people than 4/5 people, and more 4/5 people than 5/5 people. I just don't imaging that there voting weight of the 3/5, 4/5, and 5/5 voting blocks would necessarily be able to overrule the 1/5 and 2/5 voting blocks on issue of the proletariat voting themselves benefits from the public treasury provided predominately by the 3/5, 4/5, and 5/5 voting block producers.

    At which point, I'd have to ask the begged question, what would be the ultimate benefit of such a complex system? A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by NDS View Post
    Our system is broken, but rushing into a change is probably not a good idea. At this point we're discussing -- not writing a bill -- so all exceptions and complaints have to be identified and addressed.

    Voting must be perceived to be fair or the people affected will not be satisfied with the results. That's one reason there's so much discontent in the US today -- people know the situation has become SNAFU (the hidden frightening word in acronym haters need to go crazy now).

    Whatever modifications may be adopted need to follow the Constitution and still be acceptable to the population as a whole. If you want to limit voting to educated men with at least 1 acre of property you're wasting everybody's time.
    Well, it's not going to change, so everything said is an academic exercise :-)

    How about you can only vote if you pay more to the government (in taxes or voluntary donation) than you take out. This would prevent the people who do not contribute from voting themselves more at the expense of those that produce.

    You don't pay taxes, or are on welfare, you don't get to vote. You get your paycheck from the government, you don't get to vote. Yes, it will never fly, yes, hard working teachers and politicians can't vote, yes, our military personel could not vote (I don't think they should anyway so as not to be able to vote in a military dictatorship). Yep, unpopular all the way around....

    No matter who we want to restrict from voting, there will always be others who will scream we can't because my brother is a hard working teacher, or my crack addict aunt was once an engineer with NASA and has just fallen on hard times.......
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfling68 View Post
    Well, it seems the nay sayers are in the group of "well, I know this person who is really good but doesn't qualify, so the idea is bad or needs to be changed".

    Or

    "The rich people will vote only for the stuff to make themselver richer and scew everyone else over"

    Well, right now the least successful people in the society are making the decisions in the voting booths (people who will vote for the ones who will give them the biggest handout). Unless this changes, we are doomed. I will take just about any criteria, as long as everyone has the opportunity (no guarantee of success) to earn the "right" to vote. I, personally, would prefer the successful to be making the decisions rather than the failures, but that;s just me.

    I once proposed we made criteria for choosing our candidates, no criminal records (who wants a criminal running the country?), credit rating of at least 750 (if you can't handle your own money, why should I trust you to handle mine?), and no lawyers (because of the way they are trained to think). Everyone had an exception.

    Well, no system is perfect, deserving people are going to get screwed in every system. I was never promised life is fair. But, if we get bogged down in the exceptions, no progress can be made. Because there are always exceptions...........
    Wolfling I have a question and please understand it is an honest question. I'm retired military, have a college degree, work and pay taxes. My house sets on 1/2 acre so I guess I can't vote because I don't own enough land. If we support the Constitution in it's entirety, all law abiding citizens have a voice in government. How many of the founding fathers had a college degree? Before you answer with things change and and are different today, that's basically the same argument that progressives use. I'm not calling you a progressive ( I can tell from your posts you're not) just giving some food for thought.

  10. #19
    In a good economy you might be able to sell that -- but there'd have to be one exception in our current world. You'd have to accept the retired, even if all their income is Social Security, as 'producers'. Old people vote and they'd never go for this change if it impacted them. If this were imposed by some 'Revolutionary Council' its success would depend on people's acceptance of the 'Council's' legitimacy.

    Your current sig line is a quote from RA Heinlein. He wrote extensively on rights, including voting rights. Are your posts influenced by his writing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfling68 View Post
    Well, it's not going to change, so everything said is an academic exercise :-)

    How about you can only vote if you pay more to the government (in taxes or voluntary donation) than you take out. This would prevent the people who do not contribute from voting themselves more at the expense of those that produce.

    You don't pay taxes, or are on welfare, you don't get to vote. You get your paycheck from the government, you don't get to vote. Yes, it will never fly, yes, hard working teachers and politicians can't vote, yes, our military personel could not vote (I don't think they should anyway so as not to be able to vote in a military dictatorship). Yep, unpopular all the way around....

    No matter who we want to restrict from voting, there will always be others who will scream we can't because my brother is a hard working teacher, or my crack addict aunt was once an engineer with NASA and has just fallen on hard times.......
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  11. #20
    One way or another, you'd have to have some "skin" in the game in order to vote. If you're on the "dole" (geez, I'm old, who uses that term anymore?), you're automaticallly disqualified. If you're one of the 47% who pay in no federal income tax, you're disqualified. Ultimately, we need to "beat the system" wherein the populace votes themselves monies from the federal treaury as this is non-sustainable in the long run. We may be at this point already.
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Did North Carolina give voting rights toi free black's?
    By bigrebnc1861 in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2010, 05:19 PM
  2. Gun Rights Fit in With Liberal Ideals
    By gdcleanfun in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-24-2009, 01:54 AM
  3. Democrats Pull D.C. Voting Rights Act
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-03-2009, 08:21 PM
  4. Why we have no "constitutional" rights.
    By HK4U in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-23-2008, 06:20 PM
  5. POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms
    By Red Hat in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-09-2008, 08:20 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast