Should felons have the right to vote?

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-22, 16:17

Thousands of petitions like these are circulating across Florida in an unprecedented grass-roots campaign to restore voting rights to the state's more than 1.6 million felons who have completed their sentences. This includes Grimes. At 17, she was sent to prison for a burglary. Although she has served her time, Florida law has barred her from participating in municipal and presidential elections for the past 41 years.

According to The Sentencing Project, a voting rights advocacy group, disenfranchisement laws have kept 6.1 million Americans from voting, and Florida is home to the largest concentration of them: 1.68 million, or 27 percent.

Florida's law permanently strips felons of the right to vote and other civil rights, including serving on a jury, running for public office and sitting for the state bar exam. Similar laws are on the books in Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia. The law requires that felons who have served their time and want their rights restored petition a clemency board consisting of the governor, the attorney general and two Cabinet members in a convoluted and subjective process that could take years.
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/21/558127043/in-florida-felons-want-their-voting-rights-restored-automatically

State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining states each have their own approaches to the issue.

In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence.

In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored.

In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-22, 16:32

Why not? Also we should make fewer people felons.

by **tGreenWay** 2017-10-22, 16:46

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Why not? Also we should make fewer people felons.

This. And this.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-22, 18:03

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Why not?

Two counter arguments come to mind. First, if a person violates the the social contract, has that person not proven themselves to be an irresponsible member of society? How are they worthy of the trust we invest in citizens with the right to vote? Second, crimes have consequences. If a person violates the social contract and deprives other citizens of their rights, why should that person not forfeit the right to make decisions that are binding on all society as a whole?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-22, 18:07

A) plenty of irresponsible people vote. Like most. B) the punishment is the whole prison thing. Once you’re through that, to me, it should be over.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-22, 18:09

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:A) plenty of irresponsible people vote. Like most. B) the punishment is the whole prison thing. Once you’re through that, to me, it should be over.

True, but they have not been deemed unfit to be members of society, at least temporarily, by the judicial system.

by **DWags** 2017-10-22, 18:13

The person is fulfilling the social contract by going to a rehabilitation center. Once time is served let them vote.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-22, 19:16

They are not really fulfilling the social contract since they broke the social contract. The reason this question comes about is because of their inability to fulfill their obligations to the social contract.

Hypothetical: A person takes another person's life. The person who took the life has permanently denied another person their rights. The person who lost their life will never again be able to experience life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. So why should the person who took the life not be permanently denied some rights?

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-10-22, 21:03

I think we should require a basic exam in order to be eligible to vote. Nothing major- state capitols, designed functions of the branches of government, etc. Anyone over the age of 18 who earns a certain score can then register to vote.

Too many stupid people exercising their right to be stupid at the expense of others.

Also, Election Day should be a national holiday. We need to make it easier for responsible Americans to participate.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-22, 22:37

Turtleneck wrote:They are not really fulfilling the social contract since they broke the social contract. The reason this question comes about is because of their inability to fulfill their obligations to the social contract.

Hypothetical: A person takes another person's life. The person who took the life has permanently denied another person their rights. The person who lost their life will never again be able to experience life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. So why should the person who took the life not be permanently denied some rights?

If it’s been deemed that they actually can get out of prison, then I still don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote at that point. It’s really not that complicated for me. You serve your sentence and it’s over then you should be able to vote too. You shouldn’t be treated any different than me at that point.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-22, 22:46

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:They are not really fulfilling the social contract since they broke the social contract. The reason this question comes about is because of their inability to fulfill their obligations to the social contract.

Hypothetical: A person takes another person's life. The person who took the life has permanently denied another person their rights. The person who lost their life will never again be able to experience life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. So why should the person who took the life not be permanently denied some rights?

If it’s been deemed that they actually can get out of prison, then I still don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote at that point. It’s really not that complicated for me. You serve your sentence and it’s over then you should be able to vote too. You shouldn’t be treated any different than me at that point.

Their release does not change the fact that they have permanently denied somebody their rights. Although they are released from custody, their victim does not have their rights restored. This person who is released will see many of their rights return, such as the right to free speech, assembly, and religious freedoms, so how is losing the right to vote unjust?

I am largely playing devil's advocate because nobody else at tSwill will argue the case to not immediately restore the right to vote.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-22, 22:47

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I think we should require a basic exam in order to be eligible to vote. Nothing major- state capitols, designed functions of the branches of government, etc. Anyone over the age of 18 who earns a certain score can then register to vote.

Too many stupid people exercising their right to be stupid at the expense of others.

Also, Election Day should be a national holiday. We need to make it easier for responsible Americans to participate.

Your basic exam is unconstitutional.

by **Rocinante** 2017-10-23, 00:44

The entire point of incarceration is punishment for the crime. Full rights should be restored to anyone who has completed their sentence regardless of the crime. If you want to deprive them of something, make it part of the sentence. And yes, I include gun purchases in this scenario. Why have meted punishment at all if it is not actually considered to be adequate?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-23, 00:51

Turtleneck wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

If it’s been deemed that they actually can get out of prison, then I still don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote at that point. It’s really not that complicated for me. You serve your sentence and it’s over then you should be able to vote too. You shouldn’t be treated any different than me at that point.

Their release does not change the fact that they have permanently denied somebody their rights. Although they are released from custody, their victim does not have their rights restored. This person who is released will see many of their rights return, such as the right to free speech, assembly, and religious freedoms, so how is losing the right to vote unjust?

I am largely playing devil's advocate because nobody else at tSwill will argue the case to not immediately restore the right to vote.

Yeah I mean there are a lot of felonies that aren’t murder. Let’s #chitchat about those that aren’t likely life sentences then get to the rest

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-10-23, 08:01

Turtleneck wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:I think we should require a basic exam in order to be eligible to vote. Nothing major- state capitols, designed functions of the branches of government, etc. Anyone over the age of 18 who earns a certain score can then register to vote.

Too many stupid people exercising their right to be stupid at the expense of others.

Also, Election Day should be a national holiday. We need to make it easier for responsible Americans to participate.

Your basic exam is unconstitutional.

oh, I know.. but just dreaming of a world in which willful stupidity doesn't impact the outcome of important events.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-23, 08:03

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

Your basic exam is unconstitutional.
oh, I know.. but just dreaming of a world in which willful stupidity doesn't impact the outcome of important events.

Could we just stop UM fans from voting?

by **MiamiSpartan** 2017-10-23, 15:16

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I think we should require a basic exam in order to be eligible to vote. Nothing major- state capitols, designed functions of the branches of government, etc. Anyone over the age of 18 who earns a certain score can then register to vote.

Too many stupid people exercising their right to be stupid at the expense of others.

That's extremely elitist and would be the end of this country if that were to ever happen. It shocks me when people suggest eliminating the right to vote (because that's what it would do, eliminate it as a right, and instead make it a privilege). You're suggesting taking the first step toward a totalitarian form of government.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-10-23, 15:37

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:I think we should require a basic exam in order to be eligible to vote. Nothing major- state capitols, designed functions of the branches of government, etc. Anyone over the age of 18 who earns a certain score can then register to vote.

Too many stupid people exercising their right to be stupid at the expense of others.
That's extremely elitist and would be the end of this country if that were to ever happen. It shocks me when people suggest eliminating the right to vote (because that's what it would do, eliminate it as a right, and instead make it a privilege). You're suggesting taking the first step toward a totalitarian form of government.

if wanting an educated electorate is "elitist" then, yes, I'm elitist.

or.. we could just let a bunch of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers dine on deep-fried Froot Loops and believe what they read on Facebook and hear in the mainstream media.

can I still mock them or is that "elitist", too?

by **steveschneider** 2017-10-23, 15:59

I think every citizen should have a right to vote.

by **Rocinante** 2017-10-23, 16:12

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
if wanting an educated electorate is "elitist" then, yes, I'm elitist.

Well it is, soooo...

It's easy to say "I wish people were smarter about voting." The devil is in the deets bro.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2017-10-23, 16:30

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:
That's extremely elitist and would be the end of this country if that were to ever happen. It shocks me when people suggest eliminating the right to vote (because that's what it would do, eliminate it as a right, and instead make it a privilege). You're suggesting taking the first step toward a totalitarian form of government.
if wanting an educated electorate is "elitist" then, yes, I'm elitist.

or.. we could just let a bunch of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers dine on deep-fried Froot Loops and believe what they read on Facebook and hear in the mainstream media.

can I still mock them or is that "elitist", too?

Why not just make it so only landowners can vote? After all, if you don't want someone who isn't educated to have input on decisions that impact those who are educated, then why give non-landowners input on decisions that impact the land that belongs to the landowners?

Seriously, think about the implications. You're in favor of eliminating voting as a RIGHT. As I said, that's the first step toward totalitarianism. It's the kind of talk that many dictators in history have used. "The people don't know what's good for them, so I have to tell them."

People have a right to not be educated (laws that force kids to go to school does not force them to learn). People have a right to not give a crap what the capitol is of some state 2000 miles away from them. You're suggesting that a farmer in West Virginia with little education should not be able to vote for his small town mayor, or the state rep in his district, or other people/issues that directly impact the livelihood of he and his family, because he doesn't know the capitol of Oregon or how the Supreme Court fits into the Federal governmental structure. That's absurd. Hell, there are people who are born with conditions that would make it nearly impossible to pass your test. So let's disenfranchise the innocent because of how they were born?

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-10-23, 17:12

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:
if wanting an educated electorate is "elitist" then, yes, I'm elitist.

or.. we could just let a bunch of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers dine on deep-fried Froot Loops and believe what they read on Facebook and hear in the mainstream media.

can I still mock them or is that "elitist", too?
Why not just make it so only landowners can vote? After all, if you don't want someone who isn't educated to have input on decisions that impact those who are educated, then why give non-landowners input on decisions that impact the land that belongs to the landowners?

Seriously, think about the implications. You're in favor of eliminating voting as a RIGHT. As I said, that's the first step toward totalitarianism. It's the kind of talk that many dictators in history have used. "The people don't know what's good for them, so I have to tell them."

People have a right to not be educated (laws that force kids to go to school does not force them to learn). People have a right to not give a crap what the capitol is of some state 2000 miles away from them. You're suggesting that a farmer in West Virginia with little education should not be able to vote for his small town mayor, or the state rep in his district, or other people/issues that directly impact the livelihood of he and his family, because he doesn't know the capitol of Oregon or how the Supreme Court fits into the Federal governmental structure. That's absurd. Hell, there are people who are born with conditions that would make it nearly impossible to pass your test. So let's disenfranchise the innocent because of how they were born?

you can make it as convoluted as you want, but I'm not going to apologize for wanting an educated electorate.

You're more than welcome to have a different opinion.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2017-10-23, 18:07

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:
Why not just make it so only landowners can vote? After all, if you don't want someone who isn't educated to have input on decisions that impact those who are educated, then why give non-landowners input on decisions that impact the land that belongs to the landowners?

Seriously, think about the implications. You're in favor of eliminating voting as a RIGHT. As I said, that's the first step toward totalitarianism. It's the kind of talk that many dictators in history have used. "The people don't know what's good for them, so I have to tell them."

People have a right to not be educated (laws that force kids to go to school does not force them to learn). People have a right to not give a crap what the capitol is of some state 2000 miles away from them. You're suggesting that a farmer in West Virginia with little education should not be able to vote for his small town mayor, or the state rep in his district, or other people/issues that directly impact the livelihood of he and his family, because he doesn't know the capitol of Oregon or how the Supreme Court fits into the Federal governmental structure. That's absurd. Hell, there are people who are born with conditions that would make it nearly impossible to pass your test. So let's disenfranchise the innocent because of how they were born?
you can make it as convoluted as you want, but I'm not going to apologize for wanting an educated electorate.

You're more than welcome to have a different opinion.

It's not wanting an educated electorate that's the problem. It's requiring an educated electorate that is (or would be, if you had your way) the problem.

It's just pretty surprising that you, of all people, are in favor of a system that would disproportionately remove the voting rights of the lower income and minorities, and give more power to the rich white folks. Sorry, if you find that convoluted, but if you have any evidence that that wouldn't be the case, I'd be happy to hear it.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-10-23, 18:28

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:you can make it as convoluted as you want, but I'm not going to apologize for wanting an educated electorate.

You're more than welcome to have a different opinion.
It's not wanting an educated electorate that's the problem. It's requiring an educated electorate that is (or would be, if you had your way) the problem.

It's just pretty surprising that you, of all people, are in favor of a system that would disproportionately remove the voting rights of the lower income and minorities, and give more power to the rich white folks. Sorry, if you find that convoluted, but if you have any evidence that that wouldn't be the case, I'd be happy to hear it.

I don't agree with you that "uneducated" = minority.

Otherwise, I don't mind disagreeing. You're right about one thing - people have a right to be stupid. That's America for you.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-23, 19:43

This has turned into a rather interesting conversation. I wish we had more discussions like this. Good stuff. I suspect Travis will show up at any moment with a dumb .gif or InfoWars video and ruin the thread. Anyway, enough about Travis...

I would not accuse the framers of attempting to craft a totalitarian state, but voting rights were certainly circumscribed at the time of the founding. Voting rights were not discussed in the Constitution and enfranchisement was incremental. I am certainly not going to argue against enfranchisement, but am going to argue that limited voting rights, although undemocratic, should not be treated as synonymous with totalitarianism.

I would also suggest American democracy is elitist by design. As it was written, the Constitution only gave to the people the power to directly elect members of the House. Senators were to be selected by state legislative bodies, the president by electors, and the judiciary by the president and Senate. The framers did not demonstrate much faith in the people by creating a system designed to guard against the participation of the people.

To some extent, I think it is possible to argue that some of America's problems come from too much democracy. I am not suggesting stripping away voting rights, but instead agree with the sentiment expressed here, "To truly repair American democracy, Rauch and Wittes endorse a resurgence of political institutions, such as political parties, and substantive professionals, such as career politicians and experts." The populist backlash that brought Trump to office is not only inconsistent with the intentions of the framers, but also incredibly dangerous.

No offense to Bob, but I am going to suggest that his test, in addition to being unconstitutional, is silly. Anybody can memorize "state capitols" and the "designed functions of the branches of government." To me that does not constitute an educated voter. Discussions about the consequences of mass participation in politics pre-date GreenWay. We have been talking about this for a long, long time. So how about something along the lines of Plato's guardians? Simply put, the argument is that only a limited number of people qualify to make decisions about public affairs. Let those people make decisions in lieu of uneducated voters and unqualified representatives. Problem solved, right? Only the most qualified make decisions for all.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-23, 19:51

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

Their release does not change the fact that they have permanently denied somebody their rights. Although they are released from custody, their victim does not have their rights restored. This person who is released will see many of their rights return, such as the right to free speech, assembly, and religious freedoms, so how is losing the right to vote unjust?

I am largely playing devil's advocate because nobody else at tSwill will argue the case to not immediately restore the right to vote.

Yeah I mean there are a lot of felonies that aren’t murder. Let’s #chitchat about those that aren’t likely life sentences then get to the rest

If you get swindled out of your life savings by a con artist, and not even a portion of those funds are returned, has that con artist not permanently denied you the right to enjoy property you labored for?

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-10-23, 20:09

Turtleneck wrote:This has turned into a rather interesting conversation. I wish we had more discussions like this. Good stuff. I suspect Travis will show up at any moment with a dumb .gif or InfoWars video and ruin the thread. Anyway, enough about Travis...

I would not accuse the framers of attempting to craft a totalitarian state, but voting rights were certainly circumscribed at the time of the founding. Voting rights were not discussed in the Constitution and enfranchisement was incremental. I am certainly not going to argue against enfranchisement, but am going to argue that limited voting rights, although undemocratic, should not be treated as synonymous with totalitarianism.

I would also suggest American democracy is elitist by design. As it was written, the Constitution only gave to the people the power to directly elect members of the House. Senators were to be selected by state legislative bodies, the president by electors, and the judiciary by the president and Senate. The framers did not demonstrate much faith in the people by creating a system designed to guard against the participation of the people.

To some extent, I think it is possible to argue that some of America's problems come from too much democracy. I am not suggesting stripping away voting rights, but instead agree with the sentiment expressed here, "To truly repair American democracy, Rauch and Wittes endorse a resurgence of political institutions, such as political parties, and substantive professionals, such as career politicians and experts." The populist backlash that brought Trump to office is not only inconsistent with the intentions of the framers, but also incredibly dangerous.

No offense to Bob, but I am going to suggest that his test, in addition to being unconstitutional, is silly. Anybody can memorize "state capitols" and the "designed functions of the branches of government." To me that does not constitute an educated voter. Discussions about the consequences of mass participation in politics pre-date GreenWay. We have been talking about this for a long, long time. So how about something along the lines of Plato's guardians? Simply put, the argument is that only a limited number of people qualify to make decisions about public affairs. Let those people make decisions in lieu of uneducated voters and unqualified representatives. Problem solved, right? Only the most qualified make decisions for all.

while it's true that anyone can memorize state capitols and fundamental functions of the branches of government, at least it indicates an interest in being politically engaged. Something you're not gonna find on a mouth-breathing racist uncle's Facebook feed.

And, yes, I realize it's unconstitutional. But so is limiting freedom of speech and expression but the sexual predator, his idiot white christian follows, and their accomplices in the mainstream media don't have a problem with that.

America is a stupid country. It's just unfortunate that we celebrate it at the ballot box. That's my point.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-23, 20:24

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:This has turned into a rather interesting conversation. I wish we had more discussions like this. Good stuff. I suspect Travis will show up at any moment with a dumb .gif or InfoWars video and ruin the thread. Anyway, enough about Travis...

I would not accuse the framers of attempting to craft a totalitarian state, but voting rights were certainly circumscribed at the time of the founding. Voting rights were not discussed in the Constitution and enfranchisement was incremental. I am certainly not going to argue against enfranchisement, but am going to argue that limited voting rights, although undemocratic, should not be treated as synonymous with totalitarianism.

I would also suggest American democracy is elitist by design. As it was written, the Constitution only gave to the people the power to directly elect members of the House. Senators were to be selected by state legislative bodies, the president by electors, and the judiciary by the president and Senate. The framers did not demonstrate much faith in the people by creating a system designed to guard against the participation of the people.

To some extent, I think it is possible to argue that some of America's problems come from too much democracy. I am not suggesting stripping away voting rights, but instead agree with the sentiment expressed here, "To truly repair American democracy, Rauch and Wittes endorse a resurgence of political institutions, such as political parties, and substantive professionals, such as career politicians and experts." The populist backlash that brought Trump to office is not only inconsistent with the intentions of the framers, but also incredibly dangerous.

No offense to Bob, but I am going to suggest that his test, in addition to being unconstitutional, is silly. Anybody can memorize "state capitols" and the "designed functions of the branches of government." To me that does not constitute an educated voter. Discussions about the consequences of mass participation in politics pre-date GreenWay. We have been talking about this for a long, long time. So how about something along the lines of Plato's guardians? Simply put, the argument is that only a limited number of people qualify to make decisions about public affairs. Let those people make decisions in lieu of uneducated voters and unqualified representatives. Problem solved, right? Only the most qualified make decisions for all.
while it's true that anyone can memorize state capitols and fundamental functions of the branches of government, at least it indicates an interest in being politically engaged. Something you're not gonna find on a mouth-breathing racist uncle's Facebook feed.

And, yes, I realize it's unconstitutional. But so is limiting freedom of speech and expression and the sexual predator, his idiot white christian follows, and their accomplices in the mainstream media don't have a problem with that.

America is a stupid country. It's just unfortunate that we celebrate it at the ballot box.

I just do not see how that even demonstrates an interest in being politically engaged. Nonetheless, if you are committed to a test, maybe it should be for the people running for office rather than the people voting. While we spend a lot of time blasting voters for being stupid, the people elected to serve in government are often no less deficient.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-10-23, 20:31

Turtleneck wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote: while it's true that anyone can memorize state capitols and fundamental functions of the branches of government, at least it indicates an interest in being politically engaged. Something you're not gonna find on a mouth-breathing racist uncle's Facebook feed.

And, yes, I realize it's unconstitutional. But so is limiting freedom of speech and expression and the sexual predator, his idiot white christian follows, and their accomplices in the mainstream media don't have a problem with that.

America is a stupid country. It's just unfortunate that we celebrate it at the ballot box.

I just do not see how that even demonstrates an interest in being politically engaged. Nonetheless, if you are committed to a test, maybe it should be for the people running for office rather than the people voting. While we spend a lot of time blasting voters for being stupid, the people elected to serve in government are often no less deficient.

yep - we almost always get what we deserve.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2017-10-23, 21:57

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:
It's not wanting an educated electorate that's the problem. It's requiring an educated electorate that is (or would be, if you had your way) the problem.

It's just pretty surprising that you, of all people, are in favor of a system that would disproportionately remove the voting rights of the lower income and minorities, and give more power to the rich white folks. Sorry, if you find that convoluted, but if you have any evidence that that wouldn't be the case, I'd be happy to hear it.

I don't agree with you that "uneducated" = minority.

Otherwise, I don't mind disagreeing. You're right about one thing - people have a right to be stupid. That's America for you.

Maybe because I didn't say that "uneducated" = minority.

But minorities are less educated (and that is NOT saying the same thing that uneducated equals minority, as that implies causation, not simply correlation). This is fact (a sad, unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless). And I also mentioned the poor, who are also less educated.

Now, I'm sure you're probably playing semantics with what you consider to be "uneducated", perhaps talking about educated on political matters. But you brought up very general civics concepts that would be on your test. The type of civics concepts learned in school. Therefore, the level of formal education is relevant to your test. If you're making an argument that whites with less formal education know civics, or are less likely to learn it for a voting test, then provide some backup for that. Otherwise, it's only logical to to assume similar knowledge for people of similar education levels, regardless of race.

Therefore, since a smaller percentage of blacks and Hispanics have reached a given level of education than the percentage of whites, any "voting test" would disproportionately disenfranchise blacks and Hispanics.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-23, 22:19

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-23, 22:19

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-23, 22:20

by **MiamiSpartan** 2017-10-23, 22:46

Turtleneck wrote:This has turned into a rather interesting conversation. I wish we had more discussions like this. Good stuff. I suspect Travis will show up at any moment with a dumb .gif or InfoWars video and ruin the thread. Anyway, enough about Travis...

I would not accuse the framers of attempting to craft a totalitarian state, but voting rights were certainly circumscribed at the time of the founding. Voting rights were not discussed in the Constitution and enfranchisement was incremental. I am certainly not going to argue against enfranchisement, but am going to argue that limited voting rights, although undemocratic, should not be treated as synonymous with totalitarianism.

I would also suggest American democracy is elitist by design. As it was written, the Constitution only gave to the people the power to directly elect members of the House. Senators were to be selected by state legislative bodies, the president by electors, and the judiciary by the president and Senate. The framers did not demonstrate much faith in the people by creating a system designed to guard against the participation of the people.

To some extent, I think it is possible to argue that some of America's problems come from too much democracy. I am not suggesting stripping away voting rights, but instead agree with the sentiment expressed here, "To truly repair American democracy, Rauch and Wittes endorse a resurgence of political institutions, such as political parties, and substantive professionals, such as career politicians and experts." The populist backlash that brought Trump to office is not only inconsistent with the intentions of the framers, but also incredibly dangerous.

No offense to Bob, but I am going to suggest that his test, in addition to being unconstitutional, is silly. Anybody can memorize "state capitols" and the "designed functions of the branches of government." To me that does not constitute an educated voter. Discussions about the consequences of mass participation in politics pre-date GreenWay. We have been talking about this for a long, long time. So how about something along the lines of Plato's guardians? Simply put, the argument is that only a limited number of people qualify to make decisions about public affairs. Let those people make decisions in lieu of uneducated voters and unqualified representatives. Problem solved, right? Only the most qualified make decisions for all.

I wouldn't even say that being able to memorize state capitols is the biggest drawback, but rather that it is completely irrelevant to someone's knowledge of the political process. It's something you learn in elementary school and never give a shit about again until your kids are in elementary school. To consider it as having any relevance to knowledge of politics reminds me of some history teachers' obsession with dates. That's one of my pet peeves. They test kids on dates, but specific dates are usually irrelevant to the understanding of history (i.e., does it matter in the context of the Revolutionary War if the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, April 4, or October 4....other than knowing which day to shoot off fireworks?). But I digress.

Please note that I wasn't say that limited voting IS totalitarianism. I said that it's a step toward totalitarianism. And I do believe that, as it's not all that different to how many dictators have claimed power. At whatever point such a test would be implemented, the party in power would have the most say on the questions, and it can therefore be skewed to their advantage, and keep/increase their hold on power. Then with more power, they can tweak the tests little by little over the years, making it even more skewed and securing their hold on power even more. And then they have enough power to change the parameters for who gets excluded from voting. The first step is always the toughest. Yes, there was a time when the voting restrictions were pretty strong, but they've been loosened little by little ever since. Once the country has accepted that it's ok to reverse 150+ years of loosening voting restrictions, then it's a lot easier to continue to adding restrictions.

While I understand what you're saying about the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the limited voting that they instituted had more to do with the limitations of society. Women, blacks, and non-landowners were seen as second class citizens (or worse). Despite the words "all men are created equal", we know that it actually only meant that white male landowners are created equal. That was just how society was.

I'd like to think we've advanced as a society in the last 240 years to the point where we can take that phrase literally (with "men" meaning "mankind", of course), even if there are still some fuckwads that don't believe in that phrase. So part of my point in disagreeing with limiting voting privileges to people who pass some test is that it sets this country back a couple of centuries. You can say that this wouldn't be based on race or gender or income, but it discriminates against others based on how they were born (learning disabilities, handicaps, etc.), in addition to minorities and lower-income people being less likely to be educated sufficiently in these topics.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-10-24, 04:58

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:I don't agree with you that "uneducated" = minority.

Otherwise, I don't mind disagreeing. You're right about one thing - people have a right to be stupid. That's America for you.
Maybe because I didn't say that "uneducated" = minority.

But minorities are less educated (and that is NOT saying the same thing that uneducated equals minority, as that implies causation, not simply correlation). This is fact (a sad, unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless). And I also mentioned the poor, who are also less educated.

Now, I'm sure you're probably playing semantics with what you consider to be "uneducated", perhaps talking about educated on political matters. But you brought up very general civics concepts that would be on your test. The type of civics concepts learned in school. Therefore, the level of formal education is relevant to your test. If you're making an argument that whites with less formal education know civics, or are less likely to learn it for a voting test, then provide some backup for that. Otherwise, it's only logical to to assume similar knowledge for people of similar education levels, regardless of race.

Therefore, since a smaller percentage of blacks and Hispanics have reached a given level of education than the percentage of whites, any "voting test" would disproportionately disenfranchise blacks and Hispanics.

I'm sorry you disagree with my opinion.

I'm not sure what else you want me to say.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2017-10-24, 06:45

It would be cool if you supported your position. We don't have to agree, but a reasonable exchange of ideas, with supporting arguments, is intellectually stimulating.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-10-24, 07:39

MiamiSpartan wrote:It would be cool if you supported your position. We don't have to agree, but a reasonable exchange of ideas, with supporting arguments, is intellectually stimulating.

I don't really get intellectual stimulation by typing a bunch of words on an internet message board.

I'm sorry.

by **Cameron** 2017-10-25, 17:12

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:
Maybe because I didn't say that "uneducated" = minority.

But minorities are less educated (and that is NOT saying the same thing that uneducated equals minority, as that implies causation, not simply correlation). This is fact (a sad, unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless). And I also mentioned the poor, who are also less educated.

Now, I'm sure you're probably playing semantics with what you consider to be "uneducated", perhaps talking about educated on political matters. But you brought up very general civics concepts that would be on your test. The type of civics concepts learned in school. Therefore, the level of formal education is relevant to your test. If you're making an argument that whites with less formal education know civics, or are less likely to learn it for a voting test, then provide some backup for that. Otherwise, it's only logical to to assume similar knowledge for people of similar education levels, regardless of race.

Therefore, since a smaller percentage of blacks and Hispanics have reached a given level of education than the percentage of whites, any "voting test" would disproportionately disenfranchise blacks and Hispanics.
I'm sorry you disagree with my opinion.

I'm not sure what else you want me to say.

I think he wants you to say that you're wrong and your idea is bad, because you are and it is.

by **tGreenWay** 2017-10-25, 17:17

Cameron! Where the hell have you been, bru?

by **Cameron** 2017-10-25, 17:18

Turtleneck wrote:They are not really fulfilling the social contract since they broke the social contract. The reason this question comes about is because of their inability to fulfill their obligations to the social contract.

I'm not intimately familiar with the intricacies of the social contract, but I feel sure that it is either the case that A) not all illegal behavior breaks the social contract, or B) compliance with the social contract is not the proper barometer for suffrage. It is possible to break the law without violating the rights of others, permanently or otherwise.

by Sponsored content