Should every American be allowed to vote?

StevenK · Feb 17, 2017

In the UK prisoners aren't allowed to vote either. A group of inmates appealed to the European court of human rights and won their case, and also won several appeals, but we are still to allow them the vote. It's been a long running battle.

It's this kind of impertinent interference in the British legal system that made it vital that we sacrificed our economy and future and got out of the EU. This will allow us to turn our backs on Europe and chase trade deals with America and China, so we can toast the killing of any additional moaning prisoners with the lethal injection or firing squad and harvest their organs for the rich.

GohanX · Feb 17, 2017

Sylvie said:
interesting question though: should all felons really not be allowed to vote?

I wouldn't mind a probationary period. Say you do your time, get out, go a few years without getting into trouble and get your voting rights back.

sylvie · Feb 17, 2017

Jibbajaba said:
Honestly, I think that's a stupid rule. Maybe people who have been convicted of certain crimes, but to just make a blanket rule like that doesn't make much sense. You could get pinched with a big enough sack of weed that you could never vote again, but one has nothing to do with the other. I guess the logic was just that if you can't respect the laws of this country, then you lose your right to vote, but then doesn't that make voting a privilege instead of a right?

yeah, this is my point. i can see revoking the right from violent offenders, or even political offenders (especially) but why revoke it from a drug dealer or a thief?

StevenK · Feb 17, 2017

Sylvie said:
yeah, this is my point. i can see revoking the right from violent offenders, or even political offenders (especially) but why revoke it from a drug dealer or a thief?

I don't really follow that logic, you're never going to convince a justice system to admit that they don't think one of their heavily punished crimes is really that bad.

evil wasabi · Feb 17, 2017

Jibbajaba said:
Honestly, I think that's a stupid rule. Maybe people who have been convicted of certain crimes, but to just make a blanket rule like that doesn't make much sense. You could get pinched with a big enough sack of weed that you could never vote again, but one has nothing to do with the other. I guess the logic was just that if you can't respect the laws of this country, then you lose your right to vote, but then doesn't that make voting a privilege instead of a right?

It is a stupid rule. Even if someone is a horrible murderer, I think they should have one vote, and that every vote should be counted the same. The guy who fucks his children in Montana should not have more voting power than a guy who makes an honest living in Texas.

sylvie · Feb 17, 2017

stevenk said:
I don't really follow that logic, you're never going to convince a justice system to admit that they don't think one of their heavily punished crimes is really that bad.

oh well i know that. i just know the reality of things. and it isn't so much telling them the measurement of crime is less, but the consequence should make sense. I think thieves still have a say in who leads their country, especially if they've paid for their crime. I personally wouldn't consider most drug dealers to be criminals at all. If they are selling heroin to a 15 year old girl their crime concerns the life/safety of another person, not the product or the sale really. People who choose to sell drugs to customers should deffo have a say.

Evil Wasabi said:
It is a stupid rule. Even if someone is a horrible murderer, I think they should have one vote, and that every vote should be counted the same. The guy who fucks his children in Montana should not have more voting power than a guy who makes an honest living in Texas.

I understand this too. Maybe to me I don't even care. I'm just thinking along other peoples' boundaries maybe.... I can see why others would not want a serial killer to have a vote, but there are worse people who have never committed a "crime" that vote, probably for worse reasons...

StevenK · Feb 17, 2017

Sylvie said:
oh well i know that. i just know the reality of things. and it isn't so much telling them the measurement of crime is less, but the consequence should make sense. I think thieves still have a say in who leads their country, especially if they've paid for their crime. I personally wouldn't consider most drug dealers to be criminals at all. If they are selling heroin to a 15 year old girl their crime concerns the life/safety of another person, not the product or the sale really. People who choose to sell drugs to customers should deffo have a say.

I don't mind drug dealing in principle, probably because it sounds like I have similar opinions on drug taking as you do. However, it might sound prissy as fuck but I dislike drug dealers because the only reason they're doing it is for tax evasion (and danger money but I think most either don't recognise this or enjoy this aspect of the trade).

If you threw tax in there and made it a properly competitive industry where people who got it wrong actually lost money and their businesses closed (rather than just chaotic people caning all of their own products until their boss executes them for it) watch how many drug dealers could be bothered to grind out a living working 14 hours a day, day in day out for minimal return like your average liquor store owner.

I don't dislike them because of what they're selling, I dislike them because they're cheats.

Edit: I'm potentially arguing for the sake of arguing here. Slow Friday night.

evil wasabi · Feb 17, 2017

Sylvie said:
I understand this too. Maybe to me I don't even care. I'm just thinking along other peoples' boundaries maybe.... I can see why others would not want a serial killer to have a vote, but there are worse people who have never committed a "crime" that vote, probably for worse reasons...

People are obsessed with stratifications of status, or, to be more accurate, to have someone beneath them, to treat like shit.

The person you set beneath you says a lot about who you are as a person.

Yoshi · Feb 17, 2017

smokehouse said:
The only good response that I've ever heard was...do you pay property tax? In order to pay property tax, the chances are pretty good that you have a job, pay other taxes, and play a role in the outcome of this country.

That was essentially what the founding fathers intended. It was originally limited to land owners.

I don't think you should be able to vote yourself money. If you get more out of the system than you put in, you give up the right to vote in exchange.

SpamYouToDeath · Feb 17, 2017

Yoshi said:
That was essentially what the founding fathers intended. It was originally limited to land owners.

I don't think you should be able to vote yourself money. If you get more out of the system than you put in, you give up the right to vote in exchange.

How do you measure such a thing? What is the monetary value you "get out of the system" by driving on a public road or visiting a public park?

Over what timeframe would you measure this? Over what scale of government? For example, if you look at statewide federal expenditures and incomes, you'd be disenfranchising essentially all of the South and Midwest. Your vote would collapse to California, Texas, and New York.

Yoshi · Feb 17, 2017

SpamYouToDeath said:
How do you measure such a thing? What is the monetary value you "get out of the system" by driving on a public road or visiting a public park?

If you're proposing usage taxes, sign me up, but I was purely talking about actual money changing hands.

Over what timeframe would you measure this? Over what scale of government? For example, if you look at statewide federal expenditures and incomes, you'd be disenfranchising essentially all of the South and Midwest. Your vote would collapse to California, Texas, and New York.

You'd definitely have to separate it by level of government, and, as with everything, the states should be free to define their level differently if they so choose.

edit: I don't think it would be as lopsided as you do, as someone who paid $1 in net income taxes would be eligible to vote the same as someone who paid $10M in net income taxes. Plus we still have the Electoral College.

Heinz · Feb 18, 2017

You should all be forced to vote. What is this choosing thing huh?

evil wasabi · Feb 18, 2017

Yoshi said:
That was essentially what the founding fathers intended. It was originally limited to land owners.

I don't think you should be able to vote yourself money. If you get more out of the system than you put in, you give up the right to vote in exchange.

That system only let the rich have a voice, while the serfish churls could only sit and watch.

norton9478 · Feb 18, 2017

It is mostly a myth that felons can't vote.

It really depends on the state.
There are only 9 states really don't allow felons to vote after completing their sentence (usually can only be restored by the governor).
Most states allow a vote after maxing out or completing post-release supervision.
14 states restore the right after release from prison.
Felons in VT and ME can vote from prison.

SpamYouToDeath · Feb 18, 2017

lachlan said:
You should all be forced to vote. What is this choosing thing huh?

Australia does have a more functional system.

Ours is demonstrably broken (Congress holds something like a 20% approval rating, yet they keep getting re-elected) and no one wants to change it.

vaillian · Feb 18, 2017

The rest of the world should be allowed to vote for America

wyo · Feb 18, 2017

Banning felons from voting disproportionately affects the poor and people of color. Still a drop in the bucket compared to the electoral college. Clinton may have won the popular vote by 3 million or so but senate Democrats received 23 million more votes than Republican senators who currently enjoy a 52-48 majority.

Jibbajaba · Feb 18, 2017

wyo said:
Banning felons from voting disproportionately affects the poor and people of color. Still a drop in the bucket compared to the electoral college. Clinton may have won the popular vote by 3 million or so but senate Democrats received 23 million more votes than Republican senators who currently enjoy a 52-48 majority.

That's because the majority of those republican senators come from sparsely-populated backwater states full of mouth-breathers who fuck blood relatives.

Yoshi · Feb 18, 2017

wyo said:
Banning felons from voting disproportionately affects the poor and people of color. Still a drop in the bucket compared to the electoral college. Clinton may have won the popular vote by 3 million or so but senate Democrats received 23 million more votes than Republican senators who currently enjoy a 52-48 majority.

It's interesting how liberals make up new "rights" on a seemingly daily basis but like to dismiss the Constitution.

wyo · Feb 18, 2017

Yoshi said:
It's interesting how liberals make up new "rights" on a seemingly daily basis but like to dismiss the Constitution.

I'm not making anything up or dismissing the Constitution.

The right to vote is in the Constitution:

Constitution said:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Being incarcerated or on probation or parole qualifies as servitude in my book.

To your second "point"... Our electoral system is undeniably skewed in favor of the Republican minority, both at the state and national levels. Say what you want about Europe but Luxembourg doesn't have the same pull as Germany (6 seats in the European parliament vs 96). That would be ridiculous. But that's precisely how America is set up. And in case you weren't aware, the Constitution is a living document (it can be changed), not the word of Jesus.

Yoshi · Feb 18, 2017

The Democrats ruled the south not very long ago, as they fought against civil rights. To say that the electoral system favors a party is at best myopic. You've also conveniently left out the House which is designed to balance the Senate and be proportional to population. Of course holding up the EU as the right way to do anything doesn't do much for your case either.

wyo · Feb 18, 2017

Yoshi said:
The Democrats ruled the south not very long ago, as they fought against civil rights. To say that the electoral system favors a party is at best myopic. You've also conveniently left out the House which is designed to balance the Senate and be proportional to population. Of course holding up the EU as the right way to do anything doesn't do much for your case either.

Fair point. No system is perfect, but that's one of the things they have done right.

The House is gerrymandered by Republican controlled state legislatures which are themselves gerrymandered. Trump likes to say the system is rigged, and it is. Just not the way he thinks and not on purpose. Things just worked out that way at this particular point in time. Hey, it is what it is. The pendulum will eventually swing back and you'll be the one complaining

evil wasabi · Feb 18, 2017

It looks like Yoshi is saying that because Democrats were Into slavery over a hundred years ago, it's okay that Republicans are looking to return to that "great America" today.

theMot · Feb 19, 2017

Over here it is compulsory to vote. If you don't you get fined.

A lot of people just turn up and draw dicks on the ballot papers though and then put them in the box. So if you want more dick pics, make it compulsory I say.

SpamYouToDeath · Feb 19, 2017

theMot said:
Over here it is compulsory to vote. If you don't you get fined.

A lot of people just turn up and draw dicks on the ballot papers though and then put them in the box. So if you want more dick pics, make it compulsory I say.

Compulsory voting ensures that no one can be coerced into not voting. We've got problems with the poorest citizens being unable to take time from work to vote. There were attempts to mitigate it - you're not allowed to literally fire someone for being out to vote - but there's still a stigma around taking time off.

Should every American be allowed to vote?

ng.com SFII tournament winner 2002-2023

Horrible Goose

NG.COM TEMPTRESS

ng.com SFII tournament winner 2002-2023

The Jongmaster

NG.COM TEMPTRESS

ng.com SFII tournament winner 2002-2023

The Jongmaster

,

I asked for a, Custom Rank and, Learned My Lesson.

,

Parteizeit

The Jongmaster

So Many PostsNo TimeFor Games.

I asked for a, Custom Rank and, Learned My Lesson.

King's Dry Cleaner

King of Spammers

Ralfredacc's Worst Nightmare

,

King of Spammers

,

King of Spammers

The Jongmaster

Reformed collector of junk

I asked for a, Custom Rank and, Learned My Lesson.

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.