Should the right to vote be restricted?

[Astalnar]

You're free to call it whatever you will. But in the context of this thread, you're making it sound like we should be required to fight someone for our constitutional rights.

Who exactly is in a need of a killing in the modern era?

If you're not familiar with something, try asking. It'll work far better then wasting my time refuting your false premises.

It is not about who needs to be killed in modern era. Both Plato and Heinlein see the primary function of the soldiers as defenders of the polis (Plato), humanity (Heinlein). For the sake of discussion we'll focus on the two works already discussed here, namely Plato's Republic, and Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Now that we cleared that up, I hope you understand that in both works the enemy is not from within, killing your own so to say, but comes from outside. In Plato's case any other Polis that decides to attack you, in Heinlein's case, the alien species of bugs that is destroying human colonies.

Military is used as an example because it is the easiest way to distinguish those who are willing to put their life on the line from those who are not in order to support the society. Heinlein for example, puts such an obstacle in place in order for the democracy to stay healthy, and not fall apart into nepotism, oligarchy, corporativism etc. To be sure, note of collectivism is strong, but it is collectivisim for the good of healthy democracy, and thus good of the humanity and its society as a whole.

It's not about fighting. It's about willingness to self-sacrifice. Unfortunatly, just liking and retweeting things doesn't make the cut.

As for your notion that we should be fighting for our constitutional rights, wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."?

[Theinquisition]

The tax incidence on this will almost certainly wind up falling on universities rather than graduate students - if becoming a graduate student goes from being a poor financial decision to literally impossible, universities will be forced to stop playing the dishonest shell game that is "tuition waivers" for tuition costs that never existed in the first place. I'd rather see a smarter policy to prevent this behavior, but stopping the rapaciousness of universities with regard to graduate students is a worthy goal.

The way Universities pick and choose tuition waivers for grad students is ridiculous.

[Spectral]

Primalmatter literally calling for the return of feudalism here.

Not really. That was pretty standard policy in early American history.

[Sormine]

I’m not saying everyone is me my point is that we should have some basic verification it’s not hard. The left would stop whining that rednecks vote and the right/far right would stop complaining about some conspiracy of illegals voting. It’s being fair.
I’m not saying tax to have the right to vote and I’m not saying property owners should have the right to vote. Oh btw social security if you are American is another national I.d. We could always use that.

Yeah we can't use social security. It's way too vulnerable to be used as a way of identification. Even if we already use it in that way today.

And personally I would love to see us have mandatory ID cards that every citizen gets free of charge with easy access. I would love to see the Dem's push for it because I could just imagine the cute tantrums Republican's would throw and all the slogans in opposition to "State Registry" or something.

[m4xc4v413r4]

Really the only sort of Vote restriction we need is Voter IDs Laws. You bring your photo-ID with you if your voting, so that only 1 ballot is cast per person. If your too lazy to apply for a free Identification Card, you shouldn't be voting. Any politician against something as simple as that, or who claims a free card is somehow restricting the minority; is probably part of a party that uses a lot of ballots cast by people illegally anyways, or simply stated trying to cheat to remain in office.

You guys can decide which political party that applies to best.

Wait, you can vote without an ID there?

[Taso]

Yeah we can't use social security. It's way too vulnerable to be used as a way of identification. Even if we already use it in that way today.

And personally I would love to see us have mandatory ID cards that every citizen gets free of charge with easy access. I would love to see the Dem's push for it because I could just imagine the cute tantrums Republican's would throw and all the slogans in opposition to "State Registry" or something.

I don’t think all republicans object to it. Their will always have to be a compromise between inner factions of republicans even the same with democrats. my view of drivers license stems from the fact I went to a public high school we took the class drivers ed paid the school got our license so to me that seems pretty fair. My Parents the same way.

[ONCHEhap]

Imo,only people who can prove they know what the heck is happening in politics,in their countries and in the world should be allowed to vote

The stupid shouldn't have a say in national matters

[Dezerte]

If we're going to talk about the hypothetical of restricting voting rights it would make more sense to me to only allow the educated and bi-partisan people to vote, and only in issues where they have knowledge in.

[Darsithis]

Its a question I play with from time to time. Why should those that have no investment in a country have any sway in how it's run?

Would we be better off redistricting the much abused right to vote to smaller subgroups of society ? Perhaps those who served in the millitary or at a minimum owned land.

I am curious to hearing people's thoughts on it.

Terrible idea. Less than a few percent of our entire population has served in the military, and probably not much more than that outright owns land. You're essentially saying that you're okay with taxing everyone, with making decisions for everyone, but denying virtually everyone a say in who represents them.

No thanks.

[primalmatter]

Sounds more like Taxation with Representation to me.

I believe there was once some kind of Party in Boston to "celebrate" what a great idea that is.

Begs the questions. Should you have representation without taxation then?

[Mormolyce]

Not really. That was pretty standard policy in early American history.

Full credit, you managed to suggest something worse than simply attaching voting rights to property ownership. Quite an achievement.

- - - Updated - - -

Begs the questions. Should you have representation without taxation then?

Yes, and that's not what begging the question is.

[sarahtasher]

If ''voting rights'' is tied to military service, while, of all the countries of the western world, UK and United States are noticable for their opposition to compulsory military service ?

Again, during the Civil War (not unlike pretty much every country without universal military service), communities paid for poor people to enlist to meet quotas. The imaginary gimmick of Heinlein (in which people are getting citizen right after military service AND military service is not required) never happened. The association citizen=service was in countries with conscription.

(Not to mention that overweight basement dweller MAGAboys are persuaded that they would be living gods in the army, which for them boils down to ''have a big manly gun and shoot foreigners or liburals in the head'' )

[Spectral]

Full credit, you managed to suggest something worse than simply attaching voting rights to property ownership. Quite an achievement.

What did I suggest?

[sarahtasher]

BTW, for the two items people keep using and quoting to justify those idiocies, which are Heinlein and variations of ancient Greece militaries.

A) An Spartan boy did not became a citizen because he enlisted. People became hoplites because daddy was rich enough (or in many cases, sugar daddy paid for the breastplate)

B) I'm not sure everyone who signed up for the space marines in Heinlein did it for fighting the Bugs. Who exactly the space marines of unified Earth were fighting before the Bugs ? (IE, without convenient genocidal space aliens, what the space marines would do ? Being berated by space sergeants and doing space push ups ? What I mean is that without the Bugs, the whole ''service for voting rights'' aspect, put together well before the Bugs means less ''risking your life'' than ''2 years of boredom and insults'' )

[Zantos]

18 year olds are forced to make much more important decisions than "Who do I want to represent me for the next few years?"

Except, they have a safety net against those decisions. Namely, parents.

The president is the face of America. They are more then your representation. They are the ones running the show and helping to pass laws that could greatly impact the entire country. So no, they are not making more important decisions. Those decisions couldn't put someone in charge who could send us into war.

[Chinese Bootlickers]

Put an age cap of around 70+. If you can't drive down the street to pickup some milk you shouldn't be able to vote for laws that you'll probably never live to see implemented.

[Antius]

Any legal U.S. citizen should be allowed to vote and the Electoral College system should function exactly how it's working now.

[Sormine]

Except, they have a safety net against those decisions. Namely, parents.

The president is the face of America. They are more then your representation. They are the ones running the show and helping to pass laws that could greatly impact the entire country. So no, they are not making more important decisions. Those decisions couldn't put someone in charge who could send us into war.

No. No. No.

Just No.

They are literally "my" representation. And yours too. Otherwise we wouldn't be living in a republic. Secondly, not everyone has the backfall of their parents once they've turned 18. It's the age where the world tells you "You are an adult now. Act like it."

- - - Updated - - -

I don’t think all republicans object to it. Their will always have to be a compromise between inner factions of republicans even the same with democrats. my view of drivers license stems from the fact I went to a public high school we took the class drivers ed paid the school got our license so to me that seems pretty fair. My Parents the same way.

You're right, not all Republicans object to it. But every few years we, as a country, have this discussion about ID laws. And the consensus always somehow ends up being "We don't need it"

- - - Updated - - -

If you're not familiar with something, try asking. It'll work far better then wasting my time refuting your false premises.

At no point did I say I wasn't familiar with anything on the topic. Please feel free to keep the backhanded personal insults to yourself if you'd like to have a conversation.

[Mormolyce]

What did I suggest?

A system whereby it's tied to property AND the franchise is limited on racial and gender grounds.

[Zantos]

No. No. No.

Just No.

They are literally "my" representation. And yours too. Otherwise we wouldn't be living in a republic. Secondly, not everyone has the backfall of their parents once they've turned 18. It's the age where the world tells you "You are an adult now. Act like it."

Again, take away the safety net and my point remains. Their poor decision on a major in college isn't going to potentially cause a war.

The person elected is the person making the laws and its their job to ensure everyone's safety. A 18 year old hardly has the necessary grasp needed to make a truly informed decision. They are fresh out of daycare and going into college. Doesn't matter what our Society says, they are not adults just yet. They are still developing and have no real world experience to draw upon. They are easily influenced and should not be the ones to take part in deciding the one who goes into the highest position of power in our nation.

Like I said. They are Much more then merely your representative. The power they have, and the repercussions of what they do far exceed a mere representative.