Bush-Gore Redux?

[Gob]

Your electoral system is insane.

The average Briton has only had the vote since the end of WWI. It takes time.

And we didn't have to wipe the mud off our knees.

yrs,
rubato

Your ability to make yourself look stupid is quite simply stunning.

United Kingdom
See also: History of British society and The Parliamentary Franchise in the United Kingdom 1885-1918

King Henry VI of England established in 1432 that only male owners of property worth at least forty shillings, a significant sum, were entitled to vote in a county. The rules for boroughs were complex, but also restrictive. Changes were made to the details of the system, but there was no major reform until the Reform Act 1832. Suffrage in Scotland, an independent state until 1707, was also restricted. Suffrage in the United Kingdom was slowly changed over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries through the use of the Reform Acts and the Representation of the People Acts, culminating in universal suffrage, excluding children and convicted prisoners.

Reform Act 1832 - extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males in the UK voting rights
Reform Act 1867 - enfranchised all male householders, so increasing male suffrage to the United Kingdom
Representation of the People Act 1884 - amended the Reform Act of 1867 so that it would apply equally to the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised, whilst women could not vote
Between 1885-1918 moves were made by the suffrage movement to ensure votes for women. However, the duration of the First World War stopped this reform movement.

Representation of the People Act 1918 - the consequences of World War I persuaded the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who helped in the factories and elsewhere as part of the war effort. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men, who could vote at 21; however women's votes were given with these property restrictions, and were limited to those over 30 years old. This raised the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 40% of the electorate. Seven percent of the electorate had more than one vote. The first election with this system was the United Kingdom general election, 1918

Representation of the People Act 1928 - this made women's voting rights equal with men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions

Representation of the People Act 1948 - the act was passed to prevent plural voting

Representation of the People Act 1969 - extension of suffrage to those 18 and older

The Representation of the People Acts of 1983, 1985 and 2000 further modified voting

Electoral Administration Act 2006 - modified the ways in which people were able to vote and reduced the age of standing at a public election from 21 to 18.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It must be said. How does that make rubato's first statement wrong? The average Briton has had the vote only since the enfranchisement of women and that took place after WW1.

It is certainly not possible to maintain that an eligible voting population of 7.7 million (prior to 1918) out of a total population of 43* million indicates that the 'average' Briton had the right to vote.

*[url]http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... 99-111.pdf[/url]

The 1918 Act increasing the voting pool to 21.4 million has a much better claim to approaching that average but it was not until 1928 that the average Briton can truly be said to possess the right to vote.

Absent evidence to the contrary, the year 1928 is generally accepted to have arrived "since the end of WW1".

As to mud on knees, rubato is pointing to the difference between the manner in which the British needed to beg for the vote whereas in the USA of course all classes of persons achieved the right to vote instantaneously on September 3, 1783. Except of course for native Americans, African Americans, poor Americans, female Americans, some religious Americans, etc. as indicated in Wiki:

Abolition of property qualifications for white men, 1812-1860 — see: Jacksonian democracy
Citizenship in both the U.S. and U.S. States by birth or naturalization, 1868 — see: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Non-white men, 1870 — see: Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Direct election of senators, 1913 — see: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators[4]
Women, 1920 — see: Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Native Americans, 1924 — see:[5]
Residents of the District of Columbia for U.S. Presidential Elections, 1961 — see: Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution
Poor, 1964 — see: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting imposition of poll tax in federal elections
Racial minorities in certain states, 1965 — see Voting Rights Act
Poor, 1966 — see: Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), prohibiting imposition of poll tax or property requirements in all US elections.
Adults between 18 and 21, 1971 — see: Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution,[6] were granted the vote in response to Vietnam War protests which argued that soldiers who are old enough to fight for their country should be old enough to vote.[4]
Washington, D.C., for restoring local elections such as Mayor and Councilmen, after 100 year gap in Georgetown, and 190 gap in the wider city, ending Congress's policy of local election disenfranchisement started in 1801 in this former portion of Maryland, 1973, — see: D.C. Home rule
United States Military and Uniformed Services, Merchant Marine, other Citizens overseas, living on bases in the U.S., abroad, or aboard ship, 1986 — see: Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

Yankee knee polishers, every one. rubato gets 50% for twattery

MNeade

[Gob]

Hmmm... yes, the UK only got universal suffrage in 1928, the USA in ermmmm 1965, and then it's up for review every 25 years, so them uppity niggas should behave...

Obviously a far superior record.

[Guinevere]

You read that incorrectly Gob, universal suffrage in the US was 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment.

If you're going to sit there and tell me there was no discrimination against minorities in the UK that acted as a bar to the full exercise of their rights, I'm going to laugh my head off -- and point to the Race Relations Act of 1965, and its successors of 1968, 1976, and 2000.

As for "up for review every 25 years" what do you mean by that?

[Lord Jim]

As for "up for review every 25 years" what do you mean by that?

I assume that what he's referring to is the fact that the Voter's Rights Act (which only applies to a limited of states, that had an historic pattern of putting institutional barriers up to discourage minority voting) comes up periodically for review.

But Strop, Guin is absolutely right; you are grossly misinterpreting the extension of the franchise in the US.

[Guinevere]

The Voting Rights Act, specifically the provisions which outlaw poll taxes and other general discriminatory taxes applies to the entire country.

Section 5 of the Act, which requires pre-clearance by the DOJ of any changes in the requirements or qualifications for voting is the section with specific application. The entire Voting Rights Act itself does not come up periodically for review, but the pre-clearance provisions do -- with the notion that they are temporary in nature as the goal is that they will not be required in the future. The last renewal of section 5, in 2006 or 2007, was for 25 years.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So if I have the numbers right, LJ just agreed with rubato.

(Note to self: check for aerial piglets and moon cheese)

[Gob]

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6) is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.

The Act has been renewed and amended by Congress four times, the most recent being a 25-year extension signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006

Just showing that...

The average Briton has only had the vote since the end of WWI. It takes time.

And we didn't have to wipe the mud off our knees.

yrs,
rubato

Is the usual horseshit from retard, and bears no relevance to my statement" your electoral system is insane".

[Lord Jim]

Yes, Strop, but your earlier post suggested that Blacks didn't get the right to vote in this country until 1965, when in fact they got it five years after the Civil War. (Black males, anyway.)

The 15th Amendment:

Section 1. 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

[Gob]

Although, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits federal or state governments from infringing on a citizen's right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," a plethora of insidious methodologies for preventing African Americans from exercising their voting rights were successfully implemented by racist whites who dominated the corridors leading to the voting booths. Voter qualifying tests (e.g., literacy tests), discriminatory enforcement of registration rules, poll taxes, and outright racial gerrymandering were just some of the devices standing between African Americans and their constitutionally guaranteed right to both register to vote and vote.

The civil rights activism of the late 1950s and 1960s reached a high point when the Reverend Martin Luther King lead the Selma march that focused America's attention on this unforgivable inequity, and moved a sympathetic President to work with Congress to achieve a quick passage for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Before the passage of the Act, only 383 African-Americans of voting age, out of approximately 15,000, were registered to vote in Dallas County, Alabama. In the three months following the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, 8000 African-Americans were registered.

[Lord Jim]

So if I have the numbers right, LJ just agreed with rubato.

No, actually in this case I'm just disagreeing with the idea that African Americans in this country got the right to vote in 1965.

But General, I have agreed with rube on a number of occasions over the past 13 years, and have said so on many occasions. I think it would be fair to say that on average, rube generally manages to stumble blindly on to the truth of some matter about once a week...(this is an average of course; there have been a few occasions when he has managed to be right twice in one day, and even a couple of times where he accomplished the feat three times in a single day...though of course on the other hand, there have been periods of a month or more where he doesn't manage to get anything right even once, so I think an average of once a week would be a fair assessment)

So with an average of getting something right once a week, rube has a record for correctness 1/14th as good as a stopped clock....

[Guinevere]

Um, Gob, please read what I wrote. Your sections are misleading. Portions of the Act are subject to renewal (section 5), portions of the Act are permanent (section 2). And just because something was reauthorized for 25 years doesn't mean that its "up for review every 25 years." As I said above, the pre-clearance sections of the law are regularly reviewed because the intent is that eventually they become obsolete. Get it?

None of which changes the fact that the UK has passed similar anti-discrimination laws that they, clearly review and amend on a regular basis.

[Gob]

Psssstttt... I know Guin..... I'm winding up retard.......get it?

So what you are saying Guin is that you recognise that the UK and USA passed their suffrage laws at such similar times as to make retard's post a nonsense, which has been my point all along.

[dgs49]

Please advise when Britons may vote for the next sovereign.

Much as her subjects like to pretend that she is merely a figurehead, this is patently false. Last I checked, military officers still swear personal allegiance to that old woman, and not to "great Britain."

How are them voting rights actually workIng for ya?

[Gob]

Pretty good actually. Lots of people still swear allegiance to the Queen, police officers for example. It interferes with parliamentary democracy not one whit.

This should be interesting reading for retard and Dave.

[Gob]

The US Supreme Court will hear a challenge to a key section of the Voting Rights Act, a law adopted to prevent discrimination at the polls.

It will hear an Alabama challenge to the requirement that states with a history of racial bias seek permission before changes to voting rules.

The move comes shortly after President Barack Obama's re-election.

Latino and African-American voters played a key role in the election, reflecting a shift in US demographics.

Arguments in the case are expected be heard by the Supreme Court in early 2013, with a decision expected by the end of June.

The Voting Rights Act is seen as a key plank of civil rights era legislation. It was re-authorised in its entirety for 25 years in 2006 on a widely bipartisan vote in both houses of Congress.

The US top court now says it will decide on whether or not Congress exceeded its authority.

The section under review calls for "pre-clearance" - requiring certain states and local governments, mostly in the South, to receive federal approval before making any changes to their voting laws.

Opponents of section five say that the provision is out of date and is an over-reach of federal power.

"The America that elected and re-elected Barack Obama as its first African-American president is far different than when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965," Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, which opposes race-based policies and spearheaded the suit, said in a statement.

"Congress unwisely reauthorised a bill that is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp,"

But supporters of the law said recent attempted changes to elections around the country, including a raft of new voter ID laws, showed exactly why the measure was still needed.

"Given the extensive voter suppression we've seen around the country, I think Section five's relevance could not be clearer," said Elise Boddie, litigation director for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples (NAACP)'s Legal Defense Fund

Backers of the provision say minority voters are less likely to have the types of photo ID needed to comply with the new laws.

A lower appeal court agreed, upholding section five via a 2-1 decision. The court said Congress had enough evidence of recent racial discrimination to justify renewing the law in 2006.

Racial discrimination in voting is "one of the gravest evils that Congress can seek to redress", appeal court judge David Tatel wrote in the majority opinion.

The Supreme Court avoided directly ruling on part of the law's constitutionally in a 2009 case, but suggested that the requirement may no longer be needed.

[Scooter]

Please advise when Britons may vote for the next sovereign.

Perhaps around the same time you are actually able to vote for your president, rather than some faceless electors who, nothwithstanding a patchwork of state laws against faithless electors, cannot be stopped from voting however the fuck they want, regardless of whom the people of their state wish to see elected, provided they are willing to accept the legal consequences for doing so.

[Big RR]

Come on Scooter, the electoral college notwithstanding, are here any monarchs in the world that are elected? None I am aware of.

Then again, re swearing allegiance to the monarch--I have repeated pledged allegiance to the flag--a piece of cloth--as a representative of our republic ("for which it stands"); so I fail to see how swearing allegiance to the queen makes her any less (or more for that matter) than a symbol of the country.

[Scooter]

Come on Scooter, the electoral college notwithstanding, are here any monarchs in the world that are elected? None I am aware of.

Well, there's the pope, granted voted on by an extremely small electorate (members of the College of Cardinals under 80).

[Gob]

Then again, re swearing allegiance to the monarch--I have repeated pledged allegiance to the flag--a piece of cloth--as a representative of our republic ("for which it stands"); so I fail to see how swearing allegiance to the queen makes her any less (or more for that matter) than a symbol of the country.

Nailed it.