Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 10 01:55:43 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Limiting not expanding the vote
Habebe
Member
Sun Mar 15 00:25:42
I always hear every election about getting out the vote. Is that always wise? I mean we all agree there should be SOME barriers to vote age/ citizenship are the two most agreed upon then others such as criminal history.

Age is in the category of comprehemsion imo as we assume at a certain age comes a degree of maturity/Intelligence.

Citizenship is more about being vested into a Nation/government.

Half awake...gnight.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sun Mar 15 01:34:58
If you work hard enough, I'm sure you can come up with some justifications (that work for you) for limiting your political opponents' ability to vote.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Mar 15 01:57:35
requiring intelligence in voters and candidates would be nice, if not democratic

the OP age assessment seems self-serving as old people leaning R and young leaning D is known fact

plus Fox News viewers are old people... and old people are the preferred target of scammers presumably for some reason
jergul
large member
Sun Mar 15 05:51:19
I know! You have to pass a citizenship test to be able to vote!

Some already have that criteria backed into their right to vote, so it really is only a question of making the principle universal.

To vote in any election, you have to have passed a US citizenship test at some point in the past.
Habebe
Member
Sun Mar 15 07:22:49
I started thinking about it when I seen something about allowing teenagers to vote.

Which is a far stretch White land owning men.
Allahuakbar
Member
Sun Mar 15 07:29:26
Only men should vote, women are too emotional.
jergul
large member
Sun Mar 15 07:37:30
Habebe
I am certain the founding fathers never envisioned a greying population either. They would have been horrified by a mass of voters over 70 deciding the future course of a nation.

That is luckily being addressed somewhat now, but perhaps the elderly should require a mental fitness check before voting.
Habebe
Member
Sun Mar 15 07:44:25
Jergul, Its been brought up before about mental fitness tests for people before voting.Never officially or anything.Tbh I feel like the actually mentally handicapped are allowed to vote
Rugian
Member
Sun Mar 15 08:10:41
Recently theres been a major cultural shift where 18-20 year olds are increasingly seen as children, not adults capable of being fully responsible citizens.

We see this, for example, in the drive to increase the minimum age for exercising Second Amendment rights to 21, as well as the raising of the smoking age a few months back. College campuses are also increasingly coddling their wards, implementing safe spaces and actively policing for "offensive" speech and behavior. Alcohol is of course already restricted to 21 years and up.

If the case is that 18-20 year olds should be looked upon as children, with heavily restricted access to constitutional rights held by more mature individuals, then they should not have the right to engage in what is the single most serious and consequential act available to the body politic. If you cant be entrusted to exercise 1st or 2nd Amendment rights or determine what you put in your body, you should have no right to vote.
Habebe
Member
Sun Mar 15 08:20:47
Jergul, You seem sarcastic about the citizenship test to vote. However there are those who have both proposed giving non-citizens the right to vote and calling it racist when people have to show ID to prove this.
Habebe
Member
Sun Mar 15 08:22:57
http://jac...d-immigrants-midterm-elections
jergul
large member
Sun Mar 15 08:31:40
Its exactly as rasist as requiring citizens to have pass a citizenship test to vote.

Doing so favours some and suppresses others.

How about having a picture put on your certificate of passing The US Citizenship Test and using that as the only valid ID for all voting purposes?

What problem could you possibly have with that?
Rugian
Member
Sun Mar 15 08:35:20
Showing ID is racist. lol wow.

I guess having to show ID in order to purchase a firearm is racist too then. Doing so favors some and suppresses others.
CrownRoyal
Member
Sun Mar 15 08:48:41
My favorite thing in such discussions is seeing that belief from the limit the vote crowd, that it will not affect them personally, not their tribe, their class, their ability to elect representatives, etc. The belief that only their side, whatever that is atm, will take advantage of such limits, when they become accepted.
Dukhat
Member
Sun Mar 15 09:20:21
I mean that's literally all Republicans do right now when they have power. Try to keep it no matter what by cheating, lying, suppressing the votes of others, blaming others.

Meanwhile they rob current and future generations blind for their small group of billionaire donors.

And this includes morons like Rugian and Forwyn.

And they lap it up because at least they get to "Own the Libs!"

Imbeciles.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Mar 15 09:26:00
I think there are two kind pf maturity, one is biological and the other is cultural/social. While biological maturity hasn’t changed for many moons, you can make a convincing argument that the culture of today is more complex and that it takes more time to reach maturity. In that light ot makes sense to review the age limits for engaging in those social and cultural activities, like drinking, voting, owning guns etc. Maybe having a social media account.
jergul
large member
Sun Mar 15 09:28:00
Ruggy
I am just using the term habebe chose to run with.

But if you want reform, then do it properely.

Federal ID with biometric safeguards. What is not to love about the Feds having a completely registrary of everyone?

Since fraud is such a pressing issue. Such a small price to pay!
Rugian
Member
Sun Mar 15 09:34:38
jergul,

Your argument lacks merit. Federalization of the voting system is not a prerequisite to ensure an adequate level of integrity.

But anyway, I'm not sure why you think registries are such a bad thing, that is what your side supports after all:

"Former Vice President Joe Biden calls for legislation "to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun." Biden also calls for legislation "to regulate possession of existing assault weapons." Under his plan, owners of assault weapons or high-capacity magazines would either register them or sell them to the government as part of a buyback program.

Rep. Eric Swalwell called for creating a “federal licensing program for gun owners, requiring them to satisfactorily complete a training program with both written and practical exams, the same way most states do with cars and hunters.”

But unlike most other White House contenders, Swalwell also called for creating a “national firearm registry that is linked to individual firearms, and requir[ing] that all purchases, transfers, and donations of firearms be mandatorily registered.”

Like Sen. Cory Booker, Swalwell favored microstamping technology, calling for mandating “evidence-based ballistics identification techniques, such as microstamping, for all rifles and handguns manufactured or in commerce in the United States.”

Billionaire activist Thomas Steyer supports "national licensing for all gun ownership, similar to a driver’s license," and calls for "a national registry of all assault weapons."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren calls for Congress to establish a "straightforward federal licensing system for the purchase of any type of firearm or ammunition." She also calls for individuals in possession of assault weapons to register those firearms or return them to the government as part of a buyback program."

http://www...s/gun-control/weapon-registry/
Rugian
Member
Sun Mar 15 09:40:30
nim

The problem is that no consistency is applied to the question of age and maturity. Issues are looked at piecemeal rather than as a collective whole.

If you are 19 years old, you can't possibly be mature enough to make a competent decision as to whether to start smoking. Oh, but it's totally fine that you participate in the decision of who gets access to the nuclear button. No big deal there.

We need to have a serious debate over how society should view the mental competencies of late teenagers to exercise major rights and obligations. If our modern culture has stalled the development of their societal maturity, we should act accordingly.
jergul
large member
Sun Mar 15 10:07:33
Ruggy
The voting system already has an adquate level of integrity. So by that measure, any change lacks merit.

But sure, why not introduce voting levels of security for firearms too?

Everyone would first need to register to own a fire arm, the follow voting procedures to purchase fire arms after the State has checked that they are on the firearm ownership registry.

They can do that every 2 years.
CrownRoyal
Member
Sun Mar 15 10:08:33
“ We need to have a serious debate over how society should view the mental competencies of late teenagers to exercise major rights and obligations”


Followed up by the same, only for seniors. Now, limiting old farts right to vote, that could really make for different outcomes. Teenagers, who cares, they don’t vote anyway.
jergul
large member
Sun Mar 15 10:10:35
And I utterly agree. People (not only teenagers) obviously need to be tested before they can vote.

The fairest would be to require passing a citizenship test. Its already partially introduced for a number of your voters, so just roll it out to include everyone.

Use the same test as a requirement for gun ownership too. If you are going to cite constitutional protection of your right, then the State better make sure you are not talking out of your ass.
jergul
large member
Sun Mar 15 10:14:35
Its not a big deal. Most people (by a fair margin) over 67 have graduated from High School. Some have even attended college.

I am sure a citizen test criteria will be a breeze for them to pass.

Oh say can you see, lalala la la la, la la la lala, but the flag was still there!

Oh, they cannot lipsink the content of the test with hand over heart. That would not cut it.
jergul
large member
Sun Mar 15 10:15:45
sync* Though sink was appropriate.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Mar 15 10:49:45
Rugian
I am not so much talking about how one would practically go about it, but are there good reasons to entertain it? I believe there are.
patom
Member
Sun Mar 15 12:44:39
Conservative politicians have been doing their utmost to limit voter participation for many years. They have, in much of the US made it illegal for any convicted felon to vote while incarcerated and in some states ever again. That was one way of limiting the black vote in the South.

Love the citizenship angle. That really cracks me up. Almost all conservatives believe that the number one desire of illegals is to vote in this country. Just picture yourself as an illegal, supposedly trying to fly below the radar. You go to your local town office and register to vote. LMAO
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Mar 15 13:14:15
The age for drinking, smoking, voting, joining the military etc. what is in most countries 18, it should be 25, in my opinion. Age of consent should be 30.
Habebe
Member
Sun Mar 15 13:46:59
Nimatzo, Age of consent, to fuck? 30 seems extreme.

Im in favor of requiring ID to vote. However I understand that many people have trouble with obtaining and keeping ID.

When I lived in N. Philly this was much more widespread than you may think.The city was relativley pro active, not just the government but also Churches and private citizens/ organizations.


What I found absurd is that the bulk of the people who need help with Id are people in and out of jail. These should be the easiest people to ID. It's kind of fucked up that the government can ID them enough to lock them up in jail and put them on parole/probation but can't give them a free government issued ID that they can use to vote or buy booze/smokes etc.

They have the mug shots and fingerprints of them but are some how unable to give them an ID? doesn't make sense to me.
patom
Member
Sun Mar 15 15:38:14
In order for you to give an ID they have to have a solid mailing address. Many in the criminal system don't have one or just don't stay in one place long enough to establish one. Of course most of them are between 18 and 30. Usually about 28 to 30 they get tired of spending their youth in and out of jail.
Habebe
Member
Sun Mar 15 16:52:31
Patom, I don't know that they NEED a solid address. The person is still able to be identified.

I know in Philly some curches would let people use their address for mail and such things.
patom
Member
Mon Mar 16 10:05:23
When I worked at the jail, they wouldn't accept a PO Box # as an address. They wanted a physical address.
Nekran
Member
Mon Mar 16 15:40:59
"The age for drinking, smoking, voting, joining the military etc. what is in most countries 18, it should be 25, in my opinion. Age of consent should be 30."

I assume you aren't being serious?
hood
Member
Mon Mar 16 23:30:43
Knowing nim, he probably is serious, partially.
hood
Member
Mon Mar 16 23:32:10
Rather, I read it as "if I were dictator of the world..." stuff instead of a serious policy proposal.
Habebe
Member
Wed Mar 18 22:43:27
Does anyone in favor of not having mandatory photo ID ( drivers license or NDL) see the concern of people who support such a measure?

I mean it seems like common sense if you need ID for ciggs, alcohol prescriptions, driving, selling shit at a pawn shop etc. But not voting.How does that make sense.
hood
Member
Wed Mar 18 23:27:30
ID for all of the things you cite was required for a reason. There is no empirical reason to require ID to vote, as there's been no tangible, relevant effort by non-citizens to vote in our elections. They just don't do it. You're suggesting we should unleash a fire extinguisher on a pack of matches on the off chance they spontaneously combust and burn the house down. Why? What's the point?

Unless, of course, the point isn't actually to prevent some nefarious scheme of illegal voters, but to suppress legal votes that don't vote for you. Which, as it were, is exactly what it is. There's no need to ruin your counter top to extinguish unlit matches.
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 00:44:40
Hood, What is to stop people from just going and voting multiple times? In the current climate does it not seem plausible?

I agree we should do Moreno help peoplemgetnID for a million reasons. But I really just don't get it why it is more important to safeguard people from ciggarettes and beer but not from fraudelent voting.
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 00:51:46
Honestly Im with Tulsi on supporting a paper backed tangible copy for each vote.
hood
Member
Thu Mar 19 01:05:16
Because underage people trying to buy cigarettes and beer is a tangible problem: people actually do it. Nobody ineligible to vote tries to vote.

"What is to stop people from just going and voting multiple times?"

What does an ID do to stop them?
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 01:14:55
Well for one you should be able to check and see if there is a discrepancy.

US elections have been fraught with controversy.

On the flip side, who says " I really wish I could vote but I have no ID"?
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 01:17:29
I mean, why don't we just vote by mailing in peices of paper with the candidates name on it?
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 01:19:40
If anything I think we should put more effort into getting these people Id's.
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 02:02:30
I guess my point is that

1. We should do everything within reason to increase the validity of our elections.ID alome probably won't be enough imo. I understand many claim that such fraud is rare, it really we don't know because there isn't much evidence backed data which IDs could help.

2. It is extremely beneficial for people to get DL or non DL. You can't get a bank account, rent property, get a job, file taxes etc. The real issue shouldnt be should we let people without Id's vote it should be why do we have so many people without access to ID?
hood
Member
Thu Mar 19 03:02:26
"we don't know"

You don't. People whose job it is to oversee elections do.


"US elections have been fraught with controversy."

Not because non-citizens are voting.


"why do we have so many people without access to ID?"

But this has nothing to do with voting. The only reason to associate voting with ID is voter suppression.
jergul
large member
Thu Mar 19 05:19:16
Voter suppression does not increase the validity of your elections.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Mar 19 06:53:14
I am kinda serious on the 25 limit, but obviously joking when it comes to age of consent.

18 seems way too low, you have just finished high school, it was a decade ago you learned to wipe your own ass! You basically know nothing about anything.

Optimally you would give people a test and they can get their drinking license, voting license etc. like cars. You don’t just hand people cars when they turn 18, that would be retarded.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Mar 19 06:59:46
Hood
Rather, I read it as "if I were dictator of the world..." stuff instead of a serious policy proposal.

Reasonable assessment of a couple sentence on UP.

I don’t think it is practical or feasible in todays world to tweak any rights. Can you imagine the shitshow? But, I do believe what I say. And that is all we do here we argue beliefs, not serious policy proposals :) so by all means do not let that stand in the way of disagreement!
Nekran
Member
Thu Mar 19 09:05:48
"I am kinda serious on the 25 limit, but obviously joking when it comes to age of consent.

18 seems way too low, you have just finished high school, it was a decade ago you learned to wipe your own ass! You basically know nothing about anything.

Optimally you would give people a test and they can get their drinking license, voting license etc. like cars. You don’t just hand people cars when they turn 18, that would be retarded."

Interesting... especially when it comes to drinking, I've always thought the 21 limit is so stupidly high. In my opinion, you should be experimenting with drugs at 18-25 and be over it by then and afterwards just occasionally do whatever it is you enjoy.

In my experience people who have been kept away from these things until too late an age tend to overcompensate with things like binge drinking and partying way too hard.

That being said, I think proper education on the subject would do far more good than any age-limit.

When it comes to the driver's license... it's so dependent of where you live. There's places in the world where you just can't do anything without a car and there's places where you hardly have any incentive at all to have a car at any age.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Mar 19 09:31:17
I can't disagree with proper education, optimally these rights are given independent of age and instead when you have proven a level of maturity. I don't know which is more unrealistic, maturity tests or just simply raising the age limit. It is for sure more resource intensive to assess this on an individual level then just set some arbitrary age.
hood
Member
Thu Mar 19 09:57:00
"In my opinion, you should be experimenting with drugs at 18-25 and be over it by then and afterwards just occasionally do whatever it is you enjoy.

In my experience people who have been kept away from these things until too late an age tend to overcompensate with things like binge drinking and partying way too hard."

But you also have the people who go binging at a young age and get addicted then and never stop. It's somewhat of a toss up.
jergul
large member
Thu Mar 19 11:43:14
Lets experiment with drugs before our brains are fully finished. What could go wrong?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Mar 19 12:09:23
I missed that part and I disagree that people whose brains are not fully developed should experiment with drugs. I also do not think you fully appreciate something like mushrooms or LSD when you are young. There is a very strong novelty effect that overwhelms you with almost all drugs.
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 12:21:38
"But this has nothing to do with voting. The only reason to associate voting with ID is voter suppression."

If this is the case then why cant we just mail in anonymous sheets of paper with the candidates name on it. We will use the honor system.

"
You don't. People whose job it is to oversee elections do."

How do they know?

Isn't it funny its so.often the left who wants no accountability for who votes. If theybreally cared.for there people they would help them get Id's and not just try to get there votes without accountability.
hood
Member
Thu Mar 19 12:27:18
You already have to register. There is accountability. You're just a fucking tard. That isn't my fault.
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 13:48:35
The only reason to notnwant ID to vote is if you plan to cheat.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Mar 19 13:51:12
The only reason to not want stricter gun control is if you plan to kill people.
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 13:58:45
Nimatzo, Always be polite, always be proffesional, butnhabe a plan to kill everyone you meet.
hood
Member
Thu Mar 19 14:17:50
Will you just follow Hot Rod to the grave already?
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 14:24:09
Hood, Let me ask you this. Why is it you care more about these unidentified people voting than you do with actually helping them. Maybe the Democrats would ein more elections if instead of getting people without ID to vote for them they actually helped these people get IDs.

I briefly volunteered at a place called Broad Street ministries in Philly ( across the street from the Kimmel center) it's non religious regardless of the name.

These people wanted food, clean clothes, hygene packs, showers, IDs , they generally couldn't care less who was in office.
hood
Member
Thu Mar 19 14:29:14
Why are you moving the goal posts? Getting people valid ID is tangential to requiring ID to vote. They just aren't related. This thread is about restricting voting, so I am discussing the (complete lack of) merits to requiring ID to vote. Since you have nothing of value to add to that, you've decided to make the argument about something different.
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 14:34:08
How are they not related? The argument is that many democratic voters do not have ID, is it not?

The thread has gotten a bitnoff topic, but thatbis usually the case here.

hood
Member
Thu Mar 19 14:42:21
Why they aren't related:

- not having an ID is only related to voting if you make it related, via retarded requirements.
- not having ID is an entirely different bag of problems, none of which were "oh dear, I can't vote" until someone realized they could suppress votes by adding the requirement.
- the only merit to requiring ID to vote is to suppress votes. The fake reasoning of preventing illegal voting just isn't an issue; we're talking 10-30 non-citizen votes per state per election (500-1500 total). This number is completely inconsequential.

So, if you don't idiotically tie voting to owning ID, then the two aren't related. What you've done is create a problem (requiring ID to vote) and then jumped off the deep end on the problems of not having ID. You're solving a problem that doesn't exist, as it pertains to voting. That's really fucking stupid.
Habebe
Member
Thu Mar 19 14:57:43
" the only merit to requiring ID to vote is to suppress votes."- From who?
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share