Plan B Forum

In reviewing the comments in the voter ID thread, I noticed a curious split of opinion that I think deserves its own discussion, namely--are we better off when more people who have the right to vote do so?

Now I tried to explain my position in that threat, but I am a strong believer in the democratic (small d) process and earnestly believe that the country as a whole will be better off if everyone who meets the requirements (basically citizenship and residency in the precinct) gets a chance to vote should they desire to do so. I have applauded efforts to streamline registration and voting procedures to make them more user friendly and to encourage people to vote rather than take a chance that they be discouraged from voting. And while I have my politics and beliefs in the way the country should be run, I would fight as much for the right of a tea partier to vote as a socialist or libertarian or ... So I immediately view any restriction, however slight, as immediately suspect; and believe it should not be implemented absent a showing that an important interest of the country is being compromised without it.

Now from what I can see there are others here who think differently, and who believe if a person can't just get off their ass and [do whatever they view as a minimal requirement], we might be better off if they don't vote. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I do think this is a pretty widely held position, and one I understand, even though I do not subscribe to it. These issues came in in W's first election, where I heard a number of people say on the news "If they're too stupid to punch the card properly, maybe they shouldn't vote".
So I am interested in seeing other people's views about voting. I don't want to discuss the whole ID issue again; rather, whether you believe some restrictions on voting to make sure those who do are motivated to do so is a good idea.

Certainly. I think that only people who own real property should vote. Perhaps a value of $15,000.00 would be a suitable lower limit.

One of the fears of at the time of the Founding Fathers (and in later times too) was a franchise that would allow the ignorant mob to vote themselves money. That of course is exactly what has happened.

if a person can't just get off their ass and [do whatever they view as a minimal requirement], we might be better off if they don't vote.

With one change:

believe if a person can't just get off their ass and [do whatever they view as a minimal requirement], we would definitely be better off if they don't vote.

You can mark me down as a supporter of that position.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Certainly. I think that only people who own real property should vote. Perhaps a value of $15,000.00 would be a suitable lower limit.

One of the fears of at the time of the Founding Fathers (and in later times too) was a franchise that would allow the ignorant mob to vote themselves money. That of course is exactly what has happened.

Are you for real?!?

I was just kiddin'

$20,000.00 is preferable. And perhaps a spelling test and a general knowledge quiz.

meade meade meade, that is the recipe for revolution.

I really am amazed that you advocate that.

so, I shouldn t be able to vote, eh?

please explain further, and in simple words, so that I may understand.

wes

Meade's trying to tank his Liberal Democrat reputation...

OK. It's the spelling and the knowledge.

That's why.

But in case you also fail the property test, the reason is that you have no ownership interest at all in the United States of America. You occupy someone else's space and yet presume to vote on how that space should be taxed, allocated, handled, serviced and so on.

Landowners unite! You have nothing to lose but your parasites!

(LJ - is it working?)

Now I tried to explain my position in that threat

I would love to jump all over this and call it a Freudian slip and say our opinion frightens you but given the historic evidence that you are have always proven to be challenged as a typist and proof reader I know there is no real plausible deniability.

Anyone who is eligible by age and citizenship who has not be excluded by committing a recent felony should have the right to vote, after presenting proper identification proving their right.

you still haven t quite mastered the whole 'love thy neighbor' thing yet, have you meade?

As long as his neighbors are landed gentry he's fine.

apparently meade believes that property taxes are the only taxes that matter....

you would think that, as a brit (dual citizenship doesn t count), he would understand the consequences of taxation without representation.

Big RR wrote:In reviewing the comments in the voter ID thread, I noticed a curious split of opinion that I think deserves its own discussion, namely--are we better off when more people who have the right to vote do so?

Now I tried to explain my position in that threat, but I am a strong believer in the democratic (small d) process and earnestly believe that the country as a whole will be better off if everyone who meets the requirements (basically citizenship and residency in the precinct) gets a chance to vote should they desire to do so. I have applauded efforts to streamline registration and voting procedures to make them more user friendly and to encourage people to vote rather than take a chance that they be discouraged from voting. And while I have my politics and beliefs in the way the country should be run, I would fight as much for the right of a tea partier to vote as a socialist or libertarian or ... So I immediately view any restriction, however slight, as immediately suspect; and believe it should not be implemented absent a showing that an important interest of the country is being compromised without it.

Now from what I can see there are others here who think differently, and who believe if a person can't just get off their ass and [do whatever they view as a minimal requirement], we might be better off if they don't vote. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I do think this is a pretty widely held position, and one I understand, even though I do not subscribe to it. These issues came in in W's first election, where I heard a number of people say on the news "If they're too stupid to punch the card properly, maybe they shouldn't vote".
So I am interested in seeing other people's views about voting. I don't want to discuss the whole ID issue again; rather, whether you believe some restrictions on voting to make sure those who do are motivated to do so is a good idea.

I think there are two levels of argument about this.

The more general question is: does the legislation cause more harm than it prevents? This is a question which we should ask about any legislation (or lack of legislation). Or to put it another way we have an obligation to balance the harm which we know will be caused in making voting more difficult for the poorest and least powerful segment of the population with a concrete benefit which outweighs it. In the present case there been shown no evidence that the extent of voter fraud is more than trivial while the added difficulty is significant.

The second level has more specifically to do with democracy itself. If we are to say that the effects of the democratic process, of self-government, are in part justified by the fact that we have all had an opportunity to participate in that process and thus we are having to live with the consequences of our own collective decisions (good and bad) then it is of even greater importance that everyone in fact have an equal ability to participate in that decision. By cynically imposing barriers to vote for some groups we have bled moral legitimacy from our government and legitimized violent opposition to it.

If a group is deliberately excluded from adding their voice to the process then they are right to say that this is not a democracy and they have no moral obligation to support it. Jim Crow legitimized Malcolm X. the Black Panthers and armed revolution. Only the secular sainthood of MLK kept us from the outcome we deserved. If the depravity of the GOP is allowed to strip the ability to participate of the poorest in this country then we are headed backwards.




yrs,
rubato

wesw wrote:you still haven t quite mastered the whole 'love thy neighbor' thing yet, have you meade?

Well, as @w says, they both own their houses - nice people.

While Meade is right, that result is one of the things that comes along with all the good stuff you get with a democracy. Fortunately, most of the time, most people who don't know anything (and don't care that they don't know anything), don't vote.

and you wonder why people support trump....

when you cut off the lower branches of The Tree of Liberty, the ones closest to the dirt, the soil is not shaded, it becomes parched and dry. then the tree needs watering to survive. then the lowest branches can sprout anew and once again protect the good earth that that the high and mighty branches need to survive.....

wesw wrote:when you cut off the lower branches of The Tree of Liberty, the ones closest to the dirt, the soil is not shaded, it becomes parched and dry. then the tree needs watering to survive. then the lowest branches can sprout anew and once again protect the good earth that that the high and mighty branches need to survive.....

Chauncey Gardner, is that you?

Sue U wrote:

wesw wrote:when you cut off the lower branches of The Tree of Liberty, the ones closest to the dirt, the soil is not shaded, it becomes parched and dry. then the tree needs watering to survive. then the lowest branches can sprout anew and once again protect the good earth that that the high and mighty branches need to survive.....

Chauncey Gardner, is that you?