Should the right to vote be restricted?

[schwarzkopf]

The phrase "a fool and his money are soon parted" aren't there for kicks.

Judging people via sound bites isn't a rational approach.

The real solution to voting is to make it mandatory and accessible.

It's not just the wealthy that can purchase a home.

Never said it was ... some people get their own home because they are lucky enough to survive the process.

[Deleted]

No. Every legal citizen should have the right. One of the basic principles of a democracy.

Which is why I am anti-democracy.

The masses are dumb and too easily manipulated. I rather have a technocracy or something similar.

[XangXu]

What is wrong with requiring a competency test to make sure you are mentally sound to vote?

Go to youtube and type in CNN live stream.

Watch the live chat for like 2 minutes. Tell me if you want any of those people voting.

It is a serious question.

[Aehl]

Probably move the voting age up to 25 (the average age when the brain has matured, sexual maturity has passed, and impulsiveness from puberty should be diminished).

So...you are old enough to sign up and die for your country in the military but not old enough to vote....that works.

No, it doesnt.

US law is already screwy as hell...its hysterically idiotic when you think about it.

You can sign up for the military at 18..but cant drink until you are 21....wait what?

[Tiwack]

No. To ensure equal influence and balance in society, the right to vote should be inalienable. It is up to the individual, society and the media to curate discourse into something constructive up to elections to provide citizens with the ability to make an informed choice, should they want or care to vote. Best argument against democracy will always be a 5-minute conversation with your average voter. An educated population is integral to a healthy democracy. Invest in and support each other instead of undermining what you have and take for granted already.

[Deleted]

What is wrong with requiring a competency test to make sure you are mentally sound to vote?

Because they were used historically to exclude blacks and undoubtedly would be used strategically to exclude key voter blocs if they were introduced again.

[Deleted]

i'm okay with a high school diploma being required to vote, since that is all but mandatory to get by the time your 18 anyways and typically involves at least a few classes on politics.

And i'm okay with elderly people loosing the right to vote when they fail some test, conceivably this test could be combined with the one they take to keep their driving license. this should purely be a cognitive ability test, not a political test in any way or shape.

and if citizenship ever becomes harder to obtain, then i'm okay with non citizens getting the right to vote too, tho tbh if that ever happens civil war is more likely.

[Spectral]

Age limits are fine because everyone inevitably meets the age requirement. Land ownership is not something everyone inevitably acquires. Without a legitimate path to seek change, the only remaining thing they can do is take change in their own hands and resort to violence.

This sounds like a completely post-hoc rationalization rather than an actual principle.

- - - Updated - - -

Are we going to debate the definition of the word "suggest" now?

Sure, if you want to for some reason. I think it'd be a bizarre debate, but whatever.

[BuckSparkles]

I think Criminals, people who aren't citizens and those with Medically defined Mental Illness should be restricted from Voting.

I can get behind this.

- - - Updated - - -

The way it is right now is fine except for the electoral college. That old ass system needs to go. There's computers and what not that can count the votes now, no need for an organization to tally up the votes, then decide whether they want to vote according to the will of California and New York

Fixed that for you.

And this is why we don't get rid of the electoral college.

[Allybeboba]

So...you are old enough to sign up and die for your country in the military but not old enough to vote....that works.

No, it doesnt.

US law is already screwy as hell...its hysterically idiotic when you think about it.

You can sign up for the military at 18..but cant drink until you are 21....wait what?

Used to be 19 here in Texas.

[Deleted]

Seeing he owns his own company that he build him self & employs people that work for his company id say hes not an idiot and thus smarter then the masses.
He should be fine to vote.

Also I agree, i'd love to have an IQ restriction on voting.
People so goddamn stupid that they have 3 kids while working at McDonalds should really just not be able to vote or have any say in how the country is ran.

[XangXu]

Because they were used historically to exclude blacks and undoubtedly would be used strategically to exclude key voter blocs if they were introduced again.

Durring what year, 1912?

Pull that shit today and the internet would burn a city down.

It's a different world. A world where more barriers to entry are needed.

[Deleted]

Well people over 60-70 should not be allowed to vote.

Which in my country would lower the participation rate significantly. But it would also take away maybe 80% of fidesz's votes so I'm all for it.

[XangXu]

People are much to afraid of problems that just don't have any weight today.

You get one registering website for voting. You take an online test. It would have nothing to do with colour, they would ask you for a voting number, they'd check a database, and you would either be eligable to vote, or not.


I mean i'm sorry, but this isn't the olden days any more. Look at it this way.

When there were less people, a few retards would never have enough votes to actually sway an election towards 4 years of insanity.

Now that there is overpopulation, those few retards... turn into an ARMY of retards... and when retards talk... create shitty online radio shows, glorify nazi frogs, dick around on fucking 4chan...

you get Trump for president.

Another reason why the internet needs to be regulated. Lulz are all fun and games until they actually start actually affecting politics. Suddenly you realize how much influence retards have, and JUST HOW MANY PEOPLE truly want to see the world burn in chaos.

[sarahtasher]

Again, a question for people using the Heinlein argument.

Heinlein system is conveniently presented during a time where there is a war and thus (conveniently) the people doing service for the Federation are risking their lives for the benefit of Mankind. However, it's blindingly obvious that the war with the Bugs is fairly recent and that the MILITARY SERVICE=VOTE is much more ancient.

Would the system be so cool if instead of donning power armor, people doing military service were piling space beer cans in Alabama or shining space boots in Germany ? (Because compulsory military service when there is no war tends to be extremely demoralizing)

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Anyone who advocates taking the vote from anyone else should have theirs permanently rescinded.

This thread is proof of what a self-important trash pile this forum is.

[Deleted]

Durring what year, 1912?

Pull that shit today and the internet would burn a city down.

It's a different world. A world where more barriers to entry are needed.

With respect you must be very naive or deliberately myopic.

People are not burning cities down because, for example, the Republicans move black felons into safe Republican states to neuter the impact of their votes.

In every country I can think of, including the "civilized" ones, government policies are used to manipulate voting patterns indirectly.

[Deleted]

I agree. Anyone who believes that only some people should get to vote should not be allowed to vote.

[grexly75]

What it should be is compulsory voting, we have it here in Australia.. Where if you are a citizen you have to vote or get fined for not doing so.. There was at one point a couple years ago I think that the US were looking at our compulsory system..

[Spiffums]

Namely you

The Founding Fathers were Tyrants in their own right but they did put together a framework that allowed for your nonsense idea to be changed for the good of the union.

What part of my idea is non-sense? That we need ID tied to the Social Sec number? That people should have to prove via a test that they know how the process works?

Because the part you highlighted isn't an idea, it's a fact.