The right to vote in the USA

[Metanis]

http://www.westviewpress.com/bosso/imchapter6.html

Throughout American history, the general trend has been toward the expansion of the right to vote to include more and more people. At the time of the nation's founding, the right to vote was restricted to white males over the age of 21, who owned a sufficient amount of property to have a "stake in the society." The restrictions based on ownership of property, race, gender, and age were gradually removed so that today there is what might be called "universal suffrage." Even with the removal of the legal restrictions, there are still large segments of society that do not vote.

I'm fairly certain that clause about having a "stake in the society" should be put back into our voting rights laws.

Just because you consume oxygen on the same planet as me and you've managed to stay alive 18 years... why in hell should you be allowed to vote?

Or maybe when you get your driver's license you take a short current events quiz. A simple test like naming a single one of your state's representatives to congress and naming the current president. If you pass you get a voting license endorsement on your drivers license.

Perhaps if there was some public debate about taking away voting rights then maybe more people would actually get off their duff and use the right? Fear tactics ya know?

[Lalanae]

Are you actually saying that only people who own property should be allowed to vote?

Do you realized that most laws in our country have NOTHING to do with property ownership and therefore affect everyone?

WTF are you thinking??

[Canelek]

dude, wtf?

[archeiron]

WTF are you thinking??

Apparently, nothing involving higher reasoning skills and thorough logical constructs. What I want to know is: what were you thinking when you allowed yourself to be baited into replying???!

[Lalanae]

WTF are you thinking??

Apparently, nothing involving higher reasoning skills and thorough logical constructs. What I want to know is: what were you thinking when you allowed yourself to be baited into replying???!

Knowing Metanis, he is serious.

[Kguku]

WTF are you thinking??

You're asking Metanis this? I don't think he has mastered the concept of a rationalized thought.

[Sylvos]

WTF??!?!?

[XunilTlatoani]

I like the idea that if these elected officials are going to be making and enforcing laws that affect every person in the U.S. then every person should have the right to vote.

I don't, however, like the idea of the electoral college. Basically, my vote that I cast in Illinois is half as effective as the same vote cast in California, even if twice as many people in Illinois vote as in California! Add to that the fact that I know all the electoral votes from my state will either go to a Democrat or Republican, so a vote for a "third-party" candidate is just as good as not voting at all.

[miir]

Did you wake up this morning and forget to breathe?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I would be in favor of bumping the age to 21. I would also like to see some sort of basic knowledge test given right before you vote, each time you vote. My thought is all voting should be electronic. You walk in, punch in your SS# and PIN(given to you right before you vote, by the old ladies workign the desk). You take the simple 5-10 question test, ensuring you have atleast a rudimentary knowledge of the government. If you pass, you get to vote. If not, you get another chance next year.

[Xzion]

http://www.westviewpress.com/bosso/imchapter6.html

Throughout American history, the general trend has been toward the expansion of the right to vote to include more and more people. At the time of the nation's founding, the right to vote was restricted to white males over the age of 21, who owned a sufficient amount of property to have a "stake in the society." The restrictions based on ownership of property, race, gender, and age were gradually removed so that today there is what might be called "universal suffrage." Even with the removal of the legal restrictions, there are still large segments of society that do not vote.

I'm fairly certain that clause about having a "stake in the society" should be put back into our voting rights laws.

Just because you consume oxygen on the same planet as me and you've managed to stay alive 18 years... why in hell should you be allowed to vote?

Or maybe when you get your driver's license you take a short current events quiz. A simple test like naming a single one of your state's representatives to congress and naming the current president. If you pass you get a voting license endorsement on your drivers license.

Perhaps if there was some public debate about taking away voting rights then maybe more people would actually get off their duff and use the right? Fear tactics ya know?

Idiots will always vote...George W Bush is in office

[Animale]

Old enough to be drafted... old enough to vote.

Animale

[Marbus]

I can remember philosopy class in college, reading Kant, Locke and others thinking WTF! Growing up and being an American I believe everyone should have the right to vote, that's a fundamental belief in this country... at least for the currently 30 somthing generation.

However it can be argued and even considered that the idea of everyone having the right do vote might not be such a good idea. Lets face it, either by choice or due to lack of mental capacity there are some people who aren't capable of making decisions EVEN for themselves much less anyone else.

We seem to equate being able to vote with making life better in some ways. As if being able to cast a vote will somehow make someone mentally disabled or oppressed suddenly not that way. To me that is a farce used to appease the masses.

Race, Gender, property ownership etc... shouldn't apply, we shouldn't even ask those questions of people, they don't matter. However it could be argued that in order to be able to cast your vote, you have to have passed a "Civics" type of exam so that you know how the electoral college works, what some of the issues are the country is facing etc... Nothing major, nothing to diffcult but more to make sure that people are WILLING and able to take upon themselves the responsibility and honor of being part of the political process...

When you see Jay Leno or anyone else interview the random person on the street about politics it just scares the crap out of me...

Not saying I'm right or its something that SHOULD be done, just something to think about.

Marb

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

When you see Jay Leno or anyone else interview the random person on the street about politics it just scares the crap out of me...

LOL Exactly what I was thinking.

[Voronwë]

though Marb, on Leno they only show the people who give stupid answers =).

they don't show you how many people can answer the questions because that's not entertaining.

regardless, only about 50% of eligible voters vote. the most informed people are certainly voting already. People who are relatively clueless about politics tend to not be motivated to vote anyway.

regardless the notion that only property owners should be allowed to vote is ludicrous. if you pay taxes you have a stake in society. whether that is $.50 per pack of smokes, you are paying our governments operational expenses to whatever degree, and as such you have a right to vote.

[Bubba Grizz]

Old enough to be drafted... old enough to vote.

Animale

Agreed. If you want to push the draft age back up to 21 instead I'd be all for that as well. Then again I am of a mind that thinks that military service should be mandetory after graduating high school.

[Marbus]

I agree with the Leno statement and usually only those who are at least partially informed vote.

However I, like you Vor, also live in the South where I have spoken to MANY people who are going to vote Republican because it's the "Christian" thing to do. Many of those people don't have a clue about politics and if debated long enough realize they are very politically liberal but morally conservative. Yet they are voting Rep. purley for Religious reason or actually think, because their Pastor told them, they stand for political ideas they do not.

Has anyone else experienced that or is it just me?

Marb

[masteen]

However it could be argued that in order to be able to cast your vote, you have to have passed a "Civics" type of exam so that you know how the electoral college works, what some of the issues are the country is facing etc... Nothing major, nothing to diffcult but more to make sure that people are WILLING and able to take upon themselves the responsibility and honor of being part of the political process...

Not saying I'm right or its something that SHOULD be done, just something to think about.

I'll say it. You're right, and this should be done, as long as the electoral college is abolished as part of this. I also think that this should be administered only in English. Don't speak the language? Fuck 'em. Don't have a clue about shit? Fuck 'em.

[Winnow]

Old enough to be drafted... old enough to vote.

Animale

Old enough to die for your country, old enough to drink a beer as well.

[Cartalas]

Fuck!!! the Renters!!!

[Kelshara]

I never understood how you can drive a car and die for your country but not buy a beer..

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

However it could be argued that in order to be able to cast your vote, you have to have passed a "Civics" type of exam so that you know how the electoral college works, what some of the issues are the country is facing etc... Nothing major, nothing to diffcult but more to make sure that people are WILLING and able to take upon themselves the responsibility and honor of being part of the political process...

Not saying I'm right or its something that SHOULD be done, just something to think about.

I'll say it. You're right, and this should be done, as long as the electoral college is abolished as part of this. I also think that this should be administered only in English. Don't speak the language? Fuck 'em. Don't have a clue about shit? Fuck 'em.

Hear! Hear!

[Sylvos]

yeah! and while you are at it how about making it so that only White people can vote! Hell lets deport all jews and blacks back to africa while we are at it. And while you are trampling our constitutional rights to vote how about you brand us all with a number. This number can represent what voting box we can vote for the best white canidate who can then wreck our economy even more. Better yet, how about we kick everyone but the whities out, put some KKK in the senate then invade Canada. I hear they have soem weapons of mass destruction hidden in the ass's of some genetically altered Caribou.

seriously wtf goes into some of your peoples' thought processes when thinking up this shit.

bah punctuation

[Forthe]

Taxation without representation. What a novel concept.

[Jice Virago]

Your hearing the voice of the angry white male raging against the establishment.

Because, after all, how many opportunities are there in this country for a white male, anyhow?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

yeah! and while you are at it how about making it so that only White people can vote! Hell lets deport all jews and blacks back to africa while we are at it. And while you are trampling our constitutional rights to vote how about you brand us all with a number. This number can represent what voting box we can vote for the best white canidate who can then wreck our economy even more. Better yet, how about we kick everyone but the whities out, put some KKK in the senate then invade Canada. I hear they have soem weapons of mass destruction hidden in the ass's of some genetically altered Caribou.

seriously wtf goes into some of your peoples' thought processes when thinking up this shit.

bah punctuation

There you go again. No one said anything about those file hate filled remarks you just made. Stop blowing thing out of the water. Stop putting words into peoples mouths.

Is it so vile to require those voting in America to have some assemblance of intelligence and be able to read and speak the language of America?

Unbelievable you are.

[Jice Virago]

Unbelievable you are.

Bonus points for Sylvos for making Mid degenerate to Yoda Speak.

[masteen]

Taxation without representation. What a novel concept.

I'm sure those who can't pass a multiple choice civics quiz before voting contribute a huge amount to the tax base

[archeiron]

Taxation without representation. What a novel concept.

I'm sure those who can't pass a multiple choice civics quiz before voting contribute a huge amount to the tax base

So in the new elitist system, we just change the laws so they don't pay taxes!

[Xouqoa]

I would gladly fail a 10 question civics exam if it meant no taxes!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Unbelievable you are.

Bonus points for Sylvos for making Mid degenerate to Yoda Speak.

rofl

[masteen]

Taxation without representation. What a novel concept.

I'm sure those who can't pass a multiple choice civics quiz before voting contribute a huge amount to the tax base

So in the new elitist system, we just change the laws so they don't pay taxes!

Elitest system sounds so... elitest. I prefer oligarchy

[Sylvos]

RectuM?

Damn near killed him!

[Xzion]

yeah! and while you are at it how about making it so that only White people can vote! Hell lets deport all jews and blacks back to africa while we are at it. And while you are trampling our constitutional rights to vote how about you brand us all with a number. This number can represent what voting box we can vote for the best white canidate who can then wreck our economy even more. Better yet, how about we kick everyone but the whities out, put some KKK in the senate then invade Canada. I hear they have soem weapons of mass destruction hidden in the ass's of some genetically altered Caribou.

seriously wtf goes into some of your peoples' thought processes when thinking up this shit.

bah punctuation

There you go again. No one said anything about those file hate filled remarks you just made. Stop blowing thing out of the water. Stop putting words into peoples mouths.

Is it so vile to require those voting in America to have some assemblance of intelligence and be able to read and speak the language of America?

Unbelievable you are.

English is not our "official language"
The U.S has no "official language" if i remember correctly

[kyoukan]

I would be in favor of bumping the age to 21. I would also like to see some sort of basic knowledge test given right before you vote, each time you vote. My thought is all voting should be electronic. You walk in, punch in your SS# and PIN(given to you right before you vote, by the old ladies workign the desk). You take the simple 5-10 question test, ensuring you have atleast a rudimentary knowledge of the government. If you pass, you get to vote. If not, you get another chance next year.

haha, you'd fucking fail the test.

[Chidoro]

Old enough to be drafted... old enough to vote.

Animale

Old enough to die for your country, old enough to drink a beer as well.

Of course, because someone happens to be old enough to take orders for a living can has certainly understand the decision of intoxicating oneself.

Just becuae you're willing to join the military doesn't mean you have any understanding of the implications of alcohol intoxication while in public.

You can hunt at, like 12, or something, in NJ and I'm sure it's about 4 in the shithole rube state of PA. They know a single thing about the effect they have on others while being under the influence of alcohol?

People bitch about insurance now? Does it take an actuarial point of view each and every time to show the difference between a poor schmuck that totes a gun and a poor schmuck that drinks w/out knowing how to effectively operate a vehicle, let alone doing so under the influence?

[Winnow]

Old enough to be drafted... old enough to vote.

Animale

Old enough to die for your country, old enough to drink a beer as well.

Of course, because someone happens to be old enough to take orders for a living can has certainly understand the decision of intoxicating oneself.

Just becuae you're willing to join the military doesn't mean you have any understanding of the implications of alcohol intoxication while in public.

You can hunt at, like 12, or something, in NJ and I'm sure it's about 4 in the shithole rube state of PA. They know a single thing about the effect they have on others while being under the influence of alcohol?

People bitch about insurance now? Does it take an actuarial point of view each and every time to show the difference between a poor schmuck that totes a gun and a poor schmuck that drinks w/out knowing how to effectively operate a vehicle, let alone doing so under the influence?

I totally disagree with your logic. In europe there is no drinking age. I drank in high school there with no problems and good grades. You can blame our education system (the republicans fault to be sure) but there's nothing wrong with the drinking age being set to 18.

Take a look at europe before you pull out all the drinking while driving hoopla. It's not a matter of age, it's a matter of education and awareness.

[Chidoro]

I totally disagree with your logic. In europe there is no drinking age. I drank in high school there with no problems and good grades. You can blame our education system (the republicans fault to be sure) but there's nothing wrong with the drinking age being set to 18.

Take a look at europe before you pull out all the drinking while driving hoopla. It's not a matter of age, it's a matter of education and awareness.

And Europe drives diesel, does that mean it's relevant to our society? Or that beacuse a society understands the effects of intoxication while driving can be more dangerous and, therefore, has MUCH higher penalties as a result of such actions can actually play a role in the way this country handles things, I'm all ears. Seriously, ANYONE can fire a gun a someone, not everyone understands the the implications of driving drunk. And there's really no need to carry it even further because of the, normally, higher population density we face in comparison. Hell, maybe in Arizona, it doesn't matter, But you can be sure it does here in Jersey. Roads actually turn, weather actually changes, and people actually see each other.

[Winnow]

I totally disagree with your logic. In europe there is no drinking age. I drank in high school there with no problems and good grades. You can blame our education system (the republicans fault to be sure) but there's nothing wrong with the drinking age being set to 18.

Take a look at europe before you pull out all the drinking while driving hoopla. It's not a matter of age, it's a matter of education and awareness.

And Europe drives diesel, does that mean it's relevant to our society? Or that beacuse a society understands the effects of intoxication while driving can be more dangerous and, therefore, has MUCH higher penalties as a result of such actions can actually play a role in the way this country handles things, I'm all ears. Seriously, ANYONE can fire a gun a someone, not everyone understands the the implications of driving drunk. And there's really no need to carry it even further because of the, normally, higher population density we face in comparison. Hell, maybe in Arizona, it doesn't matter, But you can be sure it does here in Jersey. Roads actually turn, weather actually changes, and people actually see each other.

You're relating the right to drink with driving. The harsher penalties in europe are for all ages that can drink. I would be willing to raise the legal driving age to 18 as it is in europe. I think kids 16-18 with or without alcohol are a menace on the roads.

[Kelshara]

Is it so vile to require those voting in America to have some assemblance of intelligence and be able to read and speak the language of America?

Guess that would rule you out then.. you lack both the intelligence and after having read most of your posts the English language and grammar you use have been found lacking.

In europe there is no drinking age.

Wrong. In SOME countries in Europe (mainly Holland and Germany) you wont find an age limit for drinking. You generalize to the extreme there. However, I will say that we seem to have a way less problem with driving under influence than here..

Or that beacuse a society understands the effects of intoxication while driving can be more dangerous and, therefore, has MUCH higher penalties as a result of such actions can actually play a role in the way this country handles things, I'm all ears.

Erh are you trying to claim that the penalties for DUI is higher here than in Europe? I can't speak for all European countries but I know the penalties here don't come anywhere near what we got back home. We have a lower legal limit of alcohol allowed in your blood, we have stricter penalties.. and a hell of a lot more controls.

[Chidoro]

You're relating the right to drink with driving. The harsher penalties in europe are for all ages that can drink. I would be willing to raise the legal driving age to 18 as it is in europe. I think kids 16-18 with or without alcohol are a menace on the roads.

And I think that, as statistics will show since it's the basis of many insurance formulas, that just because a person of the age of 18 can take orders from a superior in the field, an 18 year old can therefore, understand the ramifications while being intoxicated.

It's a HUGE cost on the insurance paying society, regardless of whether you think it's right or not. It's been proven that they can't handle it and that the 21 year old mark seems satisfactory in such an understanding. And since insurance is a pool of EVERYONE, it shouldn't even be an issue.

Your mentality was the one that was tried, it was the one that was found to be no longer relevant after mathematical insurance calcs. It's just so annoying to hear someone that has no clue about the calcs think that they're being repressed or something.

[Chidoro]

Erh are you trying to claim that the penalties for DUI is higher here than in Europe? I can't speak for all European countries but I know the penalties here don't come anywhere near what we got back home. We have a lower legal limit of alcohol allowed in your blood, we have stricter penalties.. and a hell of a lot more controls.

Well, list them then. I'm under the impressions that the US (while it can't agree on an acceptable percent level between the states) has more tolerance than many Euopean countries whom, essentially remove your driving priviledges permanently upon a positive testing

[Sirton]

It maybe wrong but I feel that you should take some civics test to vote....Idiots whichever rednecks, religious one topic voters or I hate <insert republican name> only voters do not know what they are talking about most the time...If you have beliefs and keep up with what your countrys gov't is doing you have more at stake, but Im fine with everyone having the right to vote its just not my idea way with all the idiots on both sides.

On the electorial college I think its fundemental on the checks and balances of our system, but I can be for something of the effect.

Instead of winning the state you get all instead its electorial college on the districts of the House...you get your point for winning the majority in that district and count them up, so basically who controls the house controls the white house, but that will never happen because the senate and political parties will not give up that power.

Maybe better have a district point but also have the current electorial system of the states...so the electorial college will be doubled in number and the majority vote will have a slightly more impact to the vote. That way it involves more of the house and the senate voters and the majority vote overall and increases voter turnout.

[Winnow]

You're relating the right to drink with driving. The harsher penalties in europe are for all ages that can drink. I would be willing to raise the legal driving age to 18 as it is in europe. I think kids 16-18 with or without alcohol are a menace on the roads.

And I think that, as statistics will show since it's the basis of many insurance formulas, that just because a person of the age of 18 can take orders from a superior in the field, an 18 year old can therefore, understand the ramifications while being intoxicated.

It's a HUGE cost on the insurance paying society, regardless of whether you think it's right or not. It's been proven that they can't handle it and that the 21 year old mark seems satisfactory in such an understanding. And since insurance is a pool of EVERYONE, it shouldn't even be an issue.

Your mentality was the one that was tried, it was the one that was found to be no longer relevant after mathematical insurance calcs. It's just so annoying to hear someone that has no clue about the calcs think that they're being repressed or something.

You're still beating around the bush. Insurance, etc have nothing to do with the right to drink. Since when has our justice system ever based anything on how much it's going to cost in insurance? My example of europe is valid. It's our ideologies that need to change regarding drinking and penalties for DUI, if you want to continue to link the two instead of treat the right to drink by itself.

[Kelshara]

Well, list them then. I'm under the impressions that the US (while it can't agree on an acceptable percent level between the states) has more tolerance than many Euopean countries whom, essentially remove your driving priviledges permanently upon a positive testing

Didn't we just agree then? They are stricter when it comes to controls and penalties back home than here. Maybe I just misread what you said or didn't write a clear enough post...

- The legal driving limit in Norway is 0.2. At that level the eye's ability to focus quickly and the ability to change from light to darkness is reduced.

- The average debut age for alcohol is 15 years and beer is the most common. 83% of youth between 15 and 20 have tried alcohol.

- Around 5000-5500 people are stopped every year under suspicion of DUI (out of 4.5 million people).

- Punishment consists of fines, cancellation of drivers license and jail time. It can be broken down like this:

Fine: Half a month's paycheck before taxes and not under 10 000 NKR ($1500 or so).
Jail: Depends on the level of intoxication and can be either suspended (gah not the word I am looking for damnit!) depending on wether you repeat or you might HAVE to serve. Time can be up to 1 year but is typically from 21 days to 3 months.
From 0.2 to 0.5 usually no jail time.
From 0.5 to 1.0 suspended jail time.
From 1.0 to 1.5 either suspended or mandatory jail time.
Over 1.5 mandatory jail time.
Withdrawal of drivers lisence:
From 0.2 to 0.5 is less than 1 year.
From 0.5 to 0.8 is typically 18 months.
From 0.8 to 1.2 is typically 20-22 months
Over 1.2 is 2 years minimum.

If you refuse to take a bloodtest your drivers lisence is cancelled for 2 years.

If you are caught again within 5 years you will not be permitted to retake your driving test. Basically, no drivers lisence for life for two cases of DUI.

[Chidoro]

You're still beating around the bush. Insurance, etc have nothing to do with the right to drink. Since when has our justice system ever based anything on how much it's going to cost in insurance? My example of europe is valid. It's our ideologies that need to change regarding drinking and penalties for DUI, if you want to continue to link the two instead of treat the right to drink by itself.

There's no beating at all, in fact, it's all direct and right in the face. The point is that drinking in and of itself holds a number of responsibilities. These are responsibilities can be directly associated to age related immaturity to the effects of alcohol. Since this decision making ability isn't necessary in order to pick up a gun for the military, they aren't equal, nor should they be considered as such. You're willing to accept that drinking should be accepted at a certain age because military service is accepted at a certain age. i'm teeling you that the responsibilities of both aren't the same as one requires a lot more thought than the other.

Kel, we apparently just mixed messages up I guess as we seem to br on the same page.

[Winnow]

You're still beating around the bush. Insurance, etc have nothing to do with the right to drink. Since when has our justice system ever based anything on how much it's going to cost in insurance? My example of europe is valid. It's our ideologies that need to change regarding drinking and penalties for DUI, if you want to continue to link the two instead of treat the right to drink by itself.

There's no beating at all, in fact, it's all direct and right in the face. The point is that drinking in and of itself holds a number of responsibilities. These are responsibilities can be directly associated to age related immaturity to the effects of alcohol. Since this decision making ability isn't necessary in order to pick up a gun for the military, they aren't equal, nor should they be considered as such. You're willing to accept that drinking should be accepted at a certain age because military service is accepted at a certain age. i'm teeling you that the responsibilities of both aren't the same as one requires a lot more thought than the other.

Kel, we apparently just mixed messages up I guess as we seem to br on the same page.

I do not concur!

18 is the age you become a legal adult. You no longer need a guardian.

If it's been determined that individuals are not able to have consentual sex until they are 18, then that is the age that should also be when individuals have the ability to determine if they can drink as well. Drugs (alcohol) is a decision just like sex, just like voting, just like gambling, just like deciding to sign on the dotted line and die for your country.

18 across the board is what it should be.

[Lalanae]

Age of consent is state-determined. It's 17 in Texas.

[Forthe]

You're still beating around the bush. Insurance, etc have nothing to do with the right to drink. Since when has our justice system ever based anything on how much it's going to cost in insurance? My example of europe is valid. It's our ideologies that need to change regarding drinking and penalties for DUI, if you want to continue to link the two instead of treat the right to drink by itself.

There's no beating at all, in fact, it's all direct and right in the face. The point is that drinking in and of itself holds a number of responsibilities. These are responsibilities can be directly associated to age related immaturity to the effects of alcohol. Since this decision making ability isn't necessary in order to pick up a gun for the military, they aren't equal, nor should they be considered as such. You're willing to accept that drinking should be accepted at a certain age because military service is accepted at a certain age. i'm teeling you that the responsibilities of both aren't the same as one requires a lot more thought than the other.

Kel, we apparently just mixed messages up I guess as we seem to br on the same page.

I do not concur!

18 is the age you become a legal adult. You no longer need a guardian.

If it's been determined that individuals are not able to have consentual sex until they are 18, then that is the age that should also be when individuals have the ability to determine if they can drink as well. Drugs (alcohol) is a decision just like sex, just like voting, just like gambling, just like deciding to sign on the dotted line and die for your country.

18 across the board is what it should be.

Drinking age is 19 here. I'm not aware of any problem with younger people getting more DUIs. They do have more accidents in general and auto insurance will cost a lot more here until you hit 25.

[Winnow]

I see a 17 and a 19. Lets compromise and make it 18 across the globe for everything.