Who should not be allowed to vote?

[SomeDude]

I'm guessing we pretty much all agree there should be an age restriction. If you don't agree with that please start your own thread instead of disrupting this one.

If we agree at least that children or even toddlers shouldn't be voting, then we agree there should be some restrictions.

Anyone have any thoughts on who else should be denied the vote and why?

[D1984]

I'm guessing we pretty much all agree there should be an age restriction. If you don't agree with that please start your own thread instead of disrupting this one.

If we agree at least that children or even toddlers shouldn't be voting, then we agree there should be some restrictions.

Anyone have any thoughts on who else should be denied the vote and why?

Who should not be allowed to vote?

Everyone.

OK, all joking aside that was actually partly serious. At least for the House of Representatives and Senate I don't see a problem with electing (or rather "selecting" ) them by lottery....same goes for state legislatures, county commissions, local school boards, etc.

Anyone above the age of majority (18 in the US....although I'd include emancipated minors as well) who is a legal citizen gets a "Sortition Service System" Card (kind of like the Selective Service draft card pre-1973) with a certain unique series of digits/letters/both. Every two (and/or four, or five, or six) years we hold a lottery and if your number comes up, congratulations, you just got chosen to be your district/state/county/locality's Representative/Senator/County Commissioner/City Commissioner/school board member/etc.

Of course, I wouldn't actually force anyone to serve if they didn't want to (unlike, say, jury duty or the actual military draft). If someone was too busy, preferred their current job, had family/business/volunteer/church/etc obligations, didn't desire to be a politician, had moral/religious objections to passing any laws at all, or just plain didn't give a crap they could either:

A. Nominate someone that they felt would vote like they themselves would vote and then that person then becomes the new Rep/Senator/whatever (unless that person also objected in which case the first person would have to choose someone else and so on), or,

B. Simply indicate he/she is not interested in the job and if they don't want to nominate someone else, this means that the lottery drawing person to draw another ball/slip of paper/plastic cylinder with a number on it/etc to pick another person to "conscript" to serve as the Representative/Senator/etc. Eventually someone would agree to serve.

[Mountaineer]

I'm guessing we pretty much all agree there should be an age restriction. If you don't agree with that please start your own thread instead of disrupting this one.

If we agree at least that children or even toddlers shouldn't be voting, then we agree there should be some restrictions.

Anyone have any thoughts on who else should be denied the vote and why?

Who should not be allowed to vote?

Everyone.

OK, all joking aside that was actually partly serious. At least for the House of Representatives and Senate I don't see a problem with electing (or rather "selecting" ) them by lottery....same goes for state legislatures, county commissions, local school boards, etc.

Anyone above the age of majority (18 in the US....although I'd include emancipated minors as well) who is a legal citizen gets a "Sortition Service System" Card (kind of like the Selective Service draft card pre-1973) with a certain unique series of digits/letters/both. Every two (and/or four, or five, or six) years we hold a lottery and if your number comes up, congratulations, you just got chosen to be your district/state/county/locality's Representative/Senator/County Commissioner/City Commissioner/school board member/etc.

Of course, I wouldn't actually force anyone to serve if they didn't want to (unlike, say, jury duty or the actual military draft). If someone was too busy, preferred their current job, had family/business/volunteer/church/etc obligations, didn't desire to be a politician, had moral/religious objections to passing any laws at all, or just plain didn't give a crap they could either:

A. Nominate someone that they felt would vote like they themselves would vote and then that person then becomes the new Rep/Senator/whatever (unless that person also objected in which case the first person would have to choose someone else and so on), or,

B. Simply indicate he/she is not interested in the job and if they don't want to nominate someone else, this means that the lottery drawing person to draw another ball/slip of paper/plastic cylinder with a number on it/etc to pick another person to "conscript" to serve as the Representative/Senator/etc. Eventually someone would agree to serve.

I've been a lottery fan for quite a while for Federal, State, County, and Local Executive and Legislative offices [no selection of Judicial (appointed by appropriate Executive) or the bureaucrats (civil service positions are a 'normal' job)].

Additional thoughts: Only employed USA citizens are eligible, no homeless or "welfare queens/kings" (that should get some PC police action!). No political party affiliation, no political parties. No pension for any selected office holders. Pay equivalent to what the person was earning prior to being selected plus travel expenses. One term only. Automatic reinstatement to "former" job when term is over with pay adjusted for inflation.

[sophie]

How about "anyone who is not a citizen" can't vote? That would be incendiary enough, since the Democratic Party is hell bent on giving the vote to illegal immigrants - to say nothing of green card holders, students here on a J-1 visa etc.

The next question is whether there are groups of American citizens who should be denied the vote. Convicted felons, yeah I get that - but then there is a slippery slope issue. What about people convicted of misdemeanors? Including traffic tickets? And if you're going to consider excluding people on welfare, that could potentially be a LOT of people if you include things like subsidized student loans and unemployment benefits. And what about SSI for the disabled?

So I'm thinking maybe safer to not exclude any American citizen. Focus efforts on preventing votes from non-citizens, dead people, children, and multiple site voting (e.g. Californians driving to Arizona to cast illegal votes - all they had to do was register with an address picked at random from Zillow). With tens of millions of people in this country illegally, that's going to be plenty hard enough.

[D1984]

I'm guessing we pretty much all agree there should be an age restriction. If you don't agree with that please start your own thread instead of disrupting this one.

If we agree at least that children or even toddlers shouldn't be voting, then we agree there should be some restrictions.

Anyone have any thoughts on who else should be denied the vote and why?

Who should not be allowed to vote?

Everyone.

OK, all joking aside that was actually partly serious. At least for the House of Representatives and Senate I don't see a problem with electing (or rather "selecting" ) them by lottery....same goes for state legislatures, county commissions, local school boards, etc.

Anyone above the age of majority (18 in the US....although I'd include emancipated minors as well) who is a legal citizen gets a "Sortition Service System" Card (kind of like the Selective Service draft card pre-1973) with a certain unique series of digits/letters/both. Every two (and/or four, or five, or six) years we hold a lottery and if your number comes up, congratulations, you just got chosen to be your district/state/county/locality's Representative/Senator/County Commissioner/City Commissioner/school board member/etc.

Of course, I wouldn't actually force anyone to serve if they didn't want to (unlike, say, jury duty or the actual military draft). If someone was too busy, preferred their current job, had family/business/volunteer/church/etc obligations, didn't desire to be a politician, had moral/religious objections to passing any laws at all, or just plain didn't give a crap they could either:

A. Nominate someone that they felt would vote like they themselves would vote and then that person then becomes the new Rep/Senator/whatever (unless that person also objected in which case the first person would have to choose someone else and so on), or,

B. Simply indicate he/she is not interested in the job and if they don't want to nominate someone else, this means that the lottery drawing person to draw another ball/slip of paper/plastic cylinder with a number on it/etc to pick another person to "conscript" to serve as the Representative/Senator/etc. Eventually someone would agree to serve.

I've been a lottery fan for quite a while for Federal, State, County, and Local Executive and Legislative offices [no selection of Judicial (appointed by appropriate Executive) or the bureaucrats (civil service positions are a 'normal' job)].

Additional thoughts: Only employed USA citizens are eligible, no homeless or "welfare queens/kings" (that should get some PC police action!). No political party affiliation, no political parties. No pension for any selected office holders. Pay equivalent to what the person was earning prior to being selected plus travel expenses. One term only. Automatic reinstatement to "former" job when term is over with pay adjusted for inflation.

I don't see why you would exclude someone who was homeless (assuming they were not legally insane or so mentally ill they could not even understand what they were legislating on but if that were the case then homeless or not they should be excluded)...if anything they have more of an idea of what it is like to be on the very bottom of society and we need that point of view just as much as we need the point of view of CEOs, hedge fund managers, billionaire heirs like the Waltons, etc. If nothing else they could at least give us a first hand view of what might actually help the homeless (hint: for the ones that are not severely mentally ill it's called "Housing First" and it works) or maybe bring to a discussion on affordable housing a personally lived experience of what happens when places (I'm looking at you, SF and LA and expensive cities like that) have such a lack of affordable housing that people end up temporarily or permanently unhoused and/or living in cars/trailers/tents.

If you're going to exclude the unemployed wouldn't that also punish someone who just recently quit work (voluntarily) to look for a better job (i.e. was just simply pursuing the American dream and trying to move up in the world) while he/she lived off savings....or for that matter, somebody who got fired in a recession (like 2001-02, 2008-09, and 2020) through no fault of their own?

I know Mountaineer is one of the more overtly religious people around here; while I respect his right to hold such beliefs it always amazes me that some of the most "screw the less fortunate and people who are worse off than me" types of people are some of the most "Christian" ones....at least that's been my experience.

PS - totally unrelated to the above but a chief executive (a President or the like) is probably someone you don't want selected by lottery, either (which is why I suggested what were only legislative positions). Simple math says that in a few tens/hundreds of thousands of thousands of people you will get a few who are too rash/foolish/crazy/politically extreme/religious extremist/suicidally depressed/etc; not a huge issue when it's one person among many on a county commission, in the state general assembly, or even in the US House or Senate; huge issue when it's the one guy or girl with their finger on the big red button....

[D1984]

How about "anyone who is not a citizen" can't vote? That would be incendiary enough, since the Democratic Party is hell bent on giving the vote to illegal immigrants - to say nothing of green card holders, students here on a J-1 visa etc.

The next question is whether there are groups of American citizens who should be denied the vote. Convicted felons, yeah I get that - but then there is a slippery slope issue. What about people convicted of misdemeanors? Including traffic tickets? And if you're going to consider excluding people on welfare, that could potentially be a LOT of people if you include things like subsidized student loans and unemployment benefits. And what about SSI for the disabled?

So I'm thinking maybe safer to not exclude any American citizen. Focus efforts on preventing votes from non-citizens, dead people, children, and multiple site voting (e.g. Californians driving to Arizona to cast illegal votes - all they had to do was register with an address picked at random from Zillow). With tens of millions of people in this country illegally, that's going to be plenty hard enough.

You do realize that Vermont and Maine let convicted felons (even ones still in prison serving their sentences) vote, right? Heck, even some prisoners in Mississippi, Alaska and Alabama (none of which are exactly beacons of far-left wokeness) can vote while incarcerated, depending on what they were convicted of. For that matter, Canada and much/most of Europe lets all convicted felons in prison vote as well. Australia lets any felon serving a sentence of less than three years vote while incarcerated (and then lets any other felon vote once they get out and are off probation/parole). None of these places have seen their legislatures overtaken by criminals or had prisoners/ex-prisoners been the deciding vote in an election as far as I know.

The issue with not letting felons vote is that all it takes is to make something a felony and then boom....you've permanently disenfranchised anyone doing that (even if it's something relatively harmless like possessing weed, or getting caught with feathers from certain endangered birds, or having sex with a girl who told you she was 18 when she really was 17 and 11 months, or being a licensed gun dealer and forgetting to fill out some bureaucratic ATFE yellow form in exactly the right manner, etc). Your "slippery slope" above alluded to this. This was actually how a lot of black voters were removed from the voting rolls in the South in the late 1800s after Reconstruction ended; make something like vagrancy or carrying a concealed weapon or being out after dusk taking your crop to market/to the cotton gin a crime and then selectively enforce it against only blacks; when they were convicted, boom; instant disenfranchisement for life. Do you really want to give, say, a President Occasio-Cortez in 2029 and a politically allied legislature the power to make someone a felon and then use their committing that act to disenfranchise them? A rather slippery slope indeed.

[Mountaineer]

I know Mountaineer is one of the more overtly religious people around here; while I respect his right to hold such beliefs it always amazes me that some of the most "screw the less fortunate and people who are worse off than me" types of people are some of the most "Christian" ones....at least that's been my experience.

Perhaps this discussion of the two kingdoms that are ruled by Jesus will help explain your puzzlement re. me (I belong to the LCMS), if not other denominations that muddle the two kingdoms. My experience with the "muddler" types is not so different from yours.

Shorter version:
https://www.lcms.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=869

More detailed version:
https://witness.lcms.org/2007/two-kingd ... me-1-2007/

... M

[glennds]

Additional thoughts: Only employed USA citizens are eligible,....

Grab the popcorn and wait to see what AARP would say about that idea.

At least Florida would be less of a factor in Mountaineer's world of elections. And Medicare and SS reform should become very doable.

[vnatale]

Furthermore not only are some convicted felons allowed to vote they are also allowed to run for office and some get elected...

https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruptio ... me-prison/


Jailed Murderer Wins Public Office in D.C. Election with Five Inmate Candidates from Same Prison


I believe that this may be the same person today I heard interviewed on one of this past Sunday's Sunday news shows...

[SomeDude]

I know Mountaineer is one of the more overtly religious people around here; while I respect his right to hold such beliefs it always amazes me that some of the most "screw the less fortunate and people who are worse off than me" types of people are some of the most "Christian" ones....at least that's been my experience.

Do you think the lives of the homeless or mentally ill, or welfare recipients are better because they can vote? Do you think we end up with a better government because they can vote? If all of them voted, would things get better for them or anyone else?

Why do you think it's ok or preferable to exclude people under the age of 18? Surely there are tons of 17 year olds who are smarter and more responsible than homeless people. Why exclude them in favor of the homeless or those on government welfare?

[SomeDude]

Additional thoughts: Only employed USA citizens are eligible,....

Grab the popcorn and wait to see what AARP would say about that idea.

At least Florida would be less of a factor in Mountaineer's world of elections. And Medicare and SS reform should become very doable.

My opinion: Employment not required. But if you are taking any money from the government other than Social Security that you actually paid into for 40 quarters then no vote. And that includes unemployment benefits.

Why PG? Why do you think people not employed should not be allowed to vote? Does owning a business qualify? What if your biz is losing money and you're not paying income tax?

[SomeDude]

Additional thoughts: Only employed USA citizens are eligible,....

Grab the popcorn and wait to see what AARP would say about that idea.

At least Florida would be less of a factor in Mountaineer's world of elections. And Medicare and SS reform should become very doable.

My opinion: Employment not required. But if you are taking any money from the government other than Social Security that you actually paid into for 40 quarters then no vote. And that includes unemployment benefits.

Why PG? Why do you think people not employed should not be allowed to vote? Does owning a business qualify? What if your biz is losing money and you're not paying income tax?

You misread my post. For me it's all about being a productive member of society, or more specifically not a leach.

Totally missread sorry. Posting and working are near impossible for me. But so is posting on daddy duty. I guess the kid or job has to go.......

[pp4me]

Leaving aside the felon question, anyone of legal age who can produce a valid document showing that they are a legal U.S. citizen should be allowed to vote.

All others should be denied.

As for legal age, I think it was a mistake lowering it from 21 to 18. Given that they say the brain isn't fully developed until you are around 25 we should be going in the opposite direction. The rationale of lowering the age to 18 was that you could be drafted and sent to war so you ought to have some say in it. That no longer exists, at least presently.

[vnatale]

Leaving aside the felon question, anyone of legal age who can produce a valid document showing that they are a legal U.S. citizen should be allowed to vote.

All others should be denied.

As for legal age, I think it was a mistake lowering it from 21 to 18. Given that they say the brain isn't fully developed until you are around 25 we should be going in the opposite direction. The rationale of lowering the age to 18 was that you could be drafted and sent to war so you ought to have some say in it. That no longer exists, at least presently.

However you can still volunteer and potentially place yourself at great risk...

[Xan]

Leaving aside the felon question, anyone of legal age who can produce a valid document showing that they are a legal U.S. citizen should be allowed to vote.

All others should be denied.

As for legal age, I think it was a mistake lowering it from 21 to 18. Given that they say the brain isn't fully developed until you are around 25 we should be going in the opposite direction. The rationale of lowering the age to 18 was that you could be drafted and sent to war so you ought to have some say in it. That no longer exists, at least presently.

However you can still volunteer and potentially place yourself at great risk...

How about this: if you join the military you can vote at 18. Otherwise 25.

[sophie]

Got it. So the minimum voting age should be 50!!

[glennds]

Leaving aside the felon question, anyone of legal age who can produce a valid document showing that they are a legal U.S. citizen should be allowed to vote.

All others should be denied.

As for legal age, I think it was a mistake lowering it from 21 to 18. Given that they say the brain isn't fully developed until you are around 25 we should be going in the opposite direction. The rationale of lowering the age to 18 was that you could be drafted and sent to war so you ought to have some say in it. That no longer exists, at least presently.

However you can still volunteer and potentially place yourself at great risk...

How about this: if you join the military you can vote at 18. Otherwise 25.

Condition a constitutional right on military service?

[vnatale]

If at 18 years old you are held to the terms of any contract you sign then you should be able to vote.

Plus a few months ago I heard a C-Span segment wherein high school seniors who were about to take the History AP exam were calling in and being asked questions. The segment was devoted to this AP exam and giving advice as to how to pass it.

I was completely impressed with the knowledge of these 17 & 18 year old's.

Plus many 17+ year old's ARE in college and thinking and learning.

There are many people in this country far beyond them in age who I believe are no longer thinking and learning. They really know nothing about what is going on other than then long ago acquired biases.

Thinking about it more...rather than raising the voting age...I'd be more likely to vote for lowering to 16 years old. If you are allowed to take on the responsibility of driving these machines that are capable of killing and maiming and injuring other people then you should be allowed to vote.

In general being allowed to drive those machines are of far more consequence to society since there is no counterbalance to one driving poorly while, most likely, all those who vote at a younger age are, for the most part, going to be cancelled out by someone else voting for your choice's opponent.

Finally, starting them young at 16 will probably result in a higher proportion of voting by those actually eligible to vote.

[Xan]

Condition a constitutional right on military service?

Voting is consistently being overrated in terms of rights. There is not historically, nor is there now, a right to vote, at least at the federal level. The Constitution has been amended multiple times to speak on voting, but never to affirmatively grant a right to vote, always to limit the ability of states to limit voting based on particular attributes.

It (now) says that voting can't be limited based on race, or age if above 18, or sex. That's pretty much it. Other than that, it's up to states to decide who votes and even whether there's even any voting at all.

So it definitely isn't a constitutional right. Things that ARE constitutional rights are rights that we believe are independent of any particular form of government. It wouldn't even make sense for voting to be one of those. People everywhere and at all times, simply because they're people, have the right to speech, peaceable assembly, petition the government for redress, bear arms, etc etc. Voting is something that only happens under some forms of government.

I don't see how it could be spoken against that, in principle, only people who have demonstrated some level of knowledge of government, civics, and history should be allowed to vote. In practice that's difficult to do, because how would it be determined who's in charge of whatever test would be involved. But limiting voting based on something like that would be a) legal, b) a good idea, and c) impossible in practice.

[glennds]

Condition a constitutional right on military service?

Voting is consistently being overrated in terms of rights. There is not historically, nor is there now, a right to vote, at least at the federal level. The Constitution has been amended multiple times to speak on voting, but never to affirmatively grant a right to vote, always to limit the ability of states to limit voting based on particular attributes.

It (now) says that voting can't be limited based on race, or age if above 18, or sex. That's pretty much it. Other than that, it's up to states to decide who votes and even whether there's even any voting at all.

So it definitely isn't a constitutional right. Things that ARE constitutional rights are rights that we believe are independent of any particular form of government. It wouldn't even make sense for voting to be one of those. People everywhere and at all times, simply because they're people, have the right to speech, peaceable assembly, petition the government for redress, bear arms, etc etc. Voting is something that only happens under some forms of government.

I don't see how it could be spoken against that, in principle, only people who have demonstrated some level of knowledge of government, civics, and history should be allowed to vote. In practice that's difficult to do, because how would it be determined who's in charge of whatever test would be involved. But limiting voting based on something like that would be a) legal, b) a good idea, and c) impossible in practice.

Then what the heck are they talking about in the 14th and 26th amendments when they expressly use the word "right".
I would argue that in a representative democracy (or if you prefer, a constitutional republic) voting is a critical right (ignoring for a moment the distinction between state and federal level). If you will, voting is the exercise of the basic right of self governance.

Don't you think attaching conditions to a specific group of legal adults is a problem not just logistically but ideologically too? Definitely not very Libertarian.
There have been dark times in our history when voting criteria and qualification tests were applied to certain specific groups in ways that have not made us proud.
Maybe you were only kidding about the military service quid pro quo? If so, sorry for taking it seriously and taking the thread into the weeds.

Twenty-Sixth Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Xan]

It isn't a constitutionally-guaranteed right, with the exception (as you quoted) that denying voting can't be done based on age once older than 18. It can be denied for countless other reasons, including there simply not being voting.

Definitely not kidding about the military service. Why is that so horrifying? It's pretty clear that voting age should be higher than 18, and if the argument against it is that people can join the military and die for their country and not be able to vote, well then, give them that privilege if they're in the military.

Expanding the electorate has always gone hand in hand with massive increases in the size and scope of government. Maybe we could shrink it and see what happens. But it probably won't ever happen.

[glennds]

Definitely not kidding about the military service. Why is that so horrifying? It's pretty clear that voting age should be higher than 18, and if the argument against it is that people can join the military and die for their country and not be able to vote, well then, give them that privilege if they're in the military.

Why is it "pretty clear that voting age should be higher than 18"?

Is this just a qualitative opinion, or is there something specific to support a claim that the 18-20 cohort is fundamentally less qualified to vote than older demographic groups, recognizing that age of majority is 18 in all but three states?

[Xan]

Also until that recent amendment, voting age was 21 regardless of the age of majority.

[glennds]

Definitely not kidding about the military service. Why is that so horrifying? It's pretty clear that voting age should be higher than 18, and if the argument against it is that people can join the military and die for their country and not be able to vote, well then, give them that privilege if they're in the military.

Why is it "pretty clear that voting age should be higher than 18"?

Is this just a qualitative opinion, or is there something specific to support a claim that the 18-20 cohort is fundamentally less qualified to vote than older demographic groups, recognizing that age of majority is 18 in all but three states?

How many of those 47 states allow people between 18-21 drink alcohol legally? Pretty sure the answer is zero. Why is that?

Simple answer - the Federal National Drinking Age Act passed in 1984 which set an age of 21. Interestingly the 21st Amendment granted the states the authority to set drinking age within their own borders. Prior to 1984 it was 21 for some states but 18 or 19 for most.
The Act was challenged and upheld as constitutional in 1987.

However setting that trivia aside, why do you see a connection between legal drinking age and voting? What does one have to do with the other in terms of voter qualification? If the legal drinking age was 18 (as it was in many states prior to 1984), would you then be okay with 18-20 year olds voting?

[Xan]

If the state believes that somebody under 21 can't be trusted to have a sip of beer, then why would it trust that person to cast a vote?