Right To Vote ... Does it exist?

[stebo0728]

Ok lets stir up another hornets nest, by simply asking the question, does the right to vote in federal elections even exist? If you say yes, please cite this right, and explain.

[mattblancarte]

The Constitution doesn't say who has the right to vote really. It's more about who can't be discriminated against for specific things.

All kinds of rules can disqualify voters for any level of election held.

[IBCoupe]

It isn't a right, but it ought to be. At the very least, I'm in favor of removing restrictions for felons. If you're a citizen of the country and you're in a position to be subject to the enforcement of American law, you ought to have a say in how that law is made.

This whole "quiz" format is getting a little tired, by the way - "Gotcha" threadmaking and all that.

[stebo0728]

IB - sorry for the quiz format, not trying to be irritating, just different, trying to stimulate some discussion

Legislatively, there is not right to vote in federal elections. I say federal elections, because some state constitutions do attribute a right to vote, just not the US Constitution. I agree that fundamentally a right to vote should exist, but to what extent. Do we have a right to vote for everything, or just for certain things? And how does the right to vote extend, is it God given so to speak, is it attributed but the general will of the people? And then there is the small thing of discrimination. If someone says that voter discrimination doesnt exist, they dont understand the term discrimination. The 15th Ammedment, the 26th Ammendment, they dont extend a right to vote, they merely place limitations on allowable discriminations. Things such as gender and race are not discriminable, but age is, and A 26 sets that age to 18. We are supposed to be discriminating based on citizenship, whether we are is debatable. Before these ammendments, there were other discriminations. No women, no blacks. Originally voting was only extended to property owners.

Heres my position on discrimination. Gender and race, spot on, we should NOT discriminate based on those. Age, not so sure here because age is really a silly attribute to worry about, everyone is so different, maturing at different times, but if we were to place an age on it, I believe 18 is too young. Science has shown that persons dont generally form their logic and critical thinking portions of their brain until around age 25. What good do emotional impulsive votes do? I think the founding fathers might have been onto something with the property owners only thing. Anyone receiving public services should refrain from voting. Thats not to say that people who dont own property ARE receiving public services, and some who own property ARE receiving public services, so I dunno I am still a bit undecided there. But I definitely thing that anyone receiving public services should NOT be allowed to vote while receiving them. Medicaid, food stamps, TANF, WIC, any of these, you should not have a voice in furthering these policies as long as you are receiving them, that is self serving. I forget who, Im thinking Alexander Hamilton, warned us that a democratic society (I know we arent a democracy) can only survive until the populus realize that they can vote themselves money. Thats kinda where we are now. If I am on food stamps for 2 years, I am fully prepared to not be able to vote for those 2 years, I would understand the measure, and it would be well founded in my opinion. Like if I worked for a company giving away a door prize, im not eligable for the prize, same sorta thing.

Ok so any thoughts, where am I wrong?

[IBCoupe]

IB - sorry for the quiz format, not trying to be irritating, just different, trying to stimulate some discussion

Legislatively, there is not right to vote in federal elections. I say federal elections, because some state constitutions do attribute a right to vote, just not the US Constitution. I agree that fundamentally a right to vote should exist, but to what extent. Do we have a right to vote for everything, or just for certain things? And how does the right to vote extend, is it God given so to speak, is it attributed but the general will of the people? And then there is the small thing of discrimination. If someone says that voter discrimination doesnt exist, they dont understand the term discrimination. The 15th Ammedment, the 26th Ammendment, they dont extend a right to vote, they merely place limitations on allowable discriminations. Things such as gender and race are not discriminable, but age is, and A 26 sets that age to 18. We are supposed to be discriminating based on citizenship, whether we are is debatable. Before these ammendments, there were other discriminations. No women, no blacks. Originally voting was only extended to property owners.

Heres my position on discrimination. Gender and race, spot on, we should NOT discriminate based on those. Age, not so sure here because age is really a silly attribute to worry about, everyone is so different, maturing at different times, but if we were to place an age on it, I believe 18 is too young. Science has shown that persons dont generally form their logic and critical thinking portions of their brain until around age 25. What good do emotional impulsive votes do? I think the founding fathers might have been onto something with the property owners only thing. Anyone receiving public services should refrain from voting. Thats not to say that people who dont own property ARE receiving public services, and some who own property ARE receiving public services, so I dunno I am still a bit undecided there. But I definitely thing that anyone receiving public services should NOT be allowed to vote while receiving them. Medicaid, food stamps, TANF, WIC, any of these, you should not have a voice in furthering these policies as long as you are receiving them, that is self serving. I forget who, Im thinking Alexander Hamilton, warned us that a democratic society (I know we arent a democracy) can only survive until the populus realize that they can vote themselves money. Thats kinda where we are now. If I am on food stamps for 2 years, I am fully prepared to not be able to vote for those 2 years, I would understand the measure, and it would be well founded in my opinion. Like if I worked for a company giving away a door prize, im not eligable for the prize, same sorta thing.

Ok so any thoughts, where am I wrong?

I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to be irritating. Just pointing out that expressing one's own opinion in a thread like that can feel like a trap. I don't know if it's dissuading any participation that would otherwise be had, but if it's not, by all means, do whatever feels best.

I've heard the food stamps example many times from a couple coworkers in particular, but my only problem is that it operates on a faulty premise. At best, the argument presumes that those who benefit from a thing will be incapable of making rational decisions about that thing. At worst, it presumes that the ideal voter is a disinterested voter.

Without addressing the issues around disinterested voters and voter turnout, it seems to me that interested parties are exactly the parties who ought to be making decisions about a thing. Imagine all the other public services that individuals benefit from that could fall prey to that kind of reasoning.

Live in a crummy neighborhood? You rely too much on the police to be able to make a good decision about police funding.

Drive to work every day? You rely too much on public highways to be able to make a good decision about the interstate system.

Take a bus? Too reliant on public transit.

Eat food? Too reliant on the FDA.

You don't live your life free from foreign invaders, do you? Oh, you do. Well, you're not qualified to vote on defense spending.

And if you want to draw a distinction between direct aid and indirect benefits, how about this one:
You work for the government? A government contractor? No votes for you, you gravy-sucking pig!

See what I mean? I'm not trying to argue a slippery slope; I'm trying to point out that the reasoning has a major flaw. There are alternatives for getting people off the Government's teat to stripping them of their voting "rights."

[AZhitman]

^ Nicely done.

With that said, I've always thought it humorous to see the lengths some will go to, to actively court a subset of the voting population that is statistically disinclined to actually vote. I mean, I know they have to do their due diligence, but at what cost?

[stebo0728]

Without addressing the issues around disinterested voters and voter turnout, it seems to me that interested parties are exactly the parties who ought to be making decisions about a thing. Imagine all the other public services that individuals benefit from that could fall prey to that kind of reasoning.

Heres the difference I see. The things I am pointing out are not roads, defense, they are public charities. Should I be able to go to the grocery store and hand out in front and be the one to decide how much the people put in my tin cup? Or should they be the ones to decide? If we are going to set up a system of public charities, which I have no problem with, that means we put those charities in the hands of a group that has the ability to use law enforcement power to acquire the funding for the charities. Should we then place the decisions for the quality and quantity of those services into the hands of the receiving parties? NO, those decisions should be left to the parties who are going to be footing the bill.

[mattblancarte]

Agree with IB's logic.

With that said, I've always thought it humorous to see the lengths some will go to, to actively court a subset of the voting population that is statistically disinclined to actually vote...

This is the practical standpoint imho. People on food stamps (SNAP) are already pretty downtrodden... I highly doubt they actively go out and introduce legislation to throw in a Lambo with the meager goods they can purchase.

There are enough people that don't receive public charities to vote things into reason.

[stebo0728]

But im am talking about principal, lets say you are right and enough people are there to keep things reasonable, what happens when that balance shifts, and it will shift, history shows us this with the downfalls of other societies such as ours. Principally the recipient of a charity should not have a voice in the quality and quantity of the charity rendered.

[AZhitman]

...which is exactly why I oppose ALL government-managed social programs that used to be community-based (and those that were, dare I say, faith-based).

Radical? Maybe. But there was a time when it worked perfectly. Back before entitlement, greed, and political posturing took over.

[mattblancarte]

Well, in practicality, not all cases of food stamps are clean cut charity deals.

What about the guy who pays taxes for 10 years, then has a bad run and needs to feed his two kids and wife? Wouldn't you say that he is really just taking advantage of services that he helped fund?

What if he only needs it for three months? Would that prevent him from voting six months down the road?

I can agree with "beggars can't be choosers," but I don't think we can simplify food stamps to the point where that logic is applicable. I wouldn't call all people on food stamps, "beggars."

[mattblancarte]

But there was a time when it worked perfectly. Back before entitlement, greed, and political posturing took over.

I agree that if there is a community-based system competing with government-run options for welfare-related services, we should eliminate the government option.

It would be hard to define what "working perfectly" really means in this case, other than everyone is fat and happy.

I've never been to a church that had to shut down its charitable services or missions because the government was stepping in with their own charity work. Most are kicking butt in my area...

It's been my impression that entitlement, greed, and political posturing are innate to our society.

[stebo0728]

Well heres my take Matt, with your example of the guy who pays taxes 10 years, then has a bad run. I would still call that charity, because at the time he was paying, he was paying into a charity, whether it was government forced is irrelevant, the fact remains it was a charity. Now he is a recipient of this charity. Thats not to say he isnt entitled to the help, or that he is evil or a beggar because of it. If people really believed that all the people on this were beggars and low lives, then the program would be demanded to be shut down. Most people agree its nearly a necessity to have the aid available. I love the example of the girl thats beaten down about using food stamps, and only to find out she is raising her brothers 5 kids after he shot died in Iraq. There are clear cases of definite need, and thats what the programs are really for, but anyone in a position of needing these services should understand why people would not want THEM dictating the policy for the service. The analogy might sound left field, but its literally just like being help at gunpoint to put money in the bums tin cup. You have to pay your taxes, all of them, or risk penalties or even jail time. You cant opt out of the portion that goes to these services, so when times comes to modify these services, and the people milking the system figure out they have the say so on the programs, what then?

The problem with government competing with the private sector, is that if you consider the government a business entity, it is the only business that is allowed to operate at a loss over a sustained period of time. The gives the government entity a substantial advantage in the marketplace. This is really a bigger problem than most folks realize, we should get back to fiscal responsibility within our government and stop running things at such losses. Lump all the different things together that run at losses, and wizbang, theres the deficit.

[AZhitman]

The problem with government competing with the private sector, is that if you consider the government a business entity, it is the only business that is allowed to operate at a loss over a sustained period of time. The gives the government entity a substantial advantage in the marketplace. This is really a bigger problem than most folks realize, we should get back to fiscal responsibility within our government and stop running things at such losses. Lump all the different things together that run at losses, and wizbang, theres the deficit.

^THIS.

It's also the only business that can write its own rules, print its own money, and hire its own people.

I agree that if there is a community-based system competing with government-run options for welfare-related services, we should eliminate the government option.

Absolutely we should.

Won't happen. We've decimated faith-based assistance programs with political correctness. We've strangled community programs with liability insurance, threats of lawsuits, and outside mandates... All so that Uncle Sam can swoop in and "save" people, in exchange for votes.

[mattblancarte]

There are clear cases of definite need, and thats what the programs are really for, but anyone in a position of needing these services should understand why people would not want THEM dictating the policy for the service.

"Dictating" has a much more powerful connotation than a reasonable person would use to describe placing a vote.

The analogy might sound left field, but its literally just like being help at gunpoint to put money in the bums tin cup. You have to pay your taxes, all of them, or risk penalties or even jail time. You cant opt out of the portion that goes to these services, so when times comes to modify these services, and the people milking the system figure out they have the say so on the programs, what then?

You cast your vote against any unreasonable aid programs. If you find that there is an inequity in the voting population in terms of aid-voters vs. self-sustained voters then you would want to create a campaign to educate the public.

Then, you could have policy passed to disenfranchise aid-voters on policies regarding charity until someone passed a law saying you couldn't.

The problem with government competing with the private sector, is that if you consider the government a business entity, it is the only business that is allowed to operate at a loss over a sustained period of time. The gives the government entity a substantial advantage in the marketplace. This is really a bigger problem than most folks realize, we should get back to fiscal responsibility within our government and stop running things at such losses. Lump all the different things together that run at losses, and wizbang, theres the deficit.

Not sure if you've made an inference here regarding my stance on the government's role in the private sector, but I can assure you that I am not in favor of the government bailing any businesses or organizations out. I've made this clear in other threads. I agree with you, we should take a hard look at government-subsidized business and charities, find the ones that are failing, then shut them down. Fiscal responsibility is numero uno right now.

Organizations like the USPS that lose a ton of money annually are ridiculous. They have very capable private-sector competitors that would benefit from increased demand based on consolidated supply. Jobs would then filter back into the private competitors like FedEx and UPS. More non-circulated tax money can enter the system, and the "arteries" can begin to unclog a bit. Un-bloating government on all levels is a big deal to me.

That doesn't mean we need to ignore less-fortunate people (or even disenfranchise their votes out of fear). Like I said, if there was enough private-sector charity going on to feed the xx,xxx,xxx number of people in the US (citizen and aliens) who need the help, I say cancel SNAP.

Unfortunately, the private-sector hasn't stepped up to strengthen the claim that it could sustain all charities that really should be available to those in need.

Won't happen. We've decimated faith-based assistance programs with political correctness. We've strangled community programs with liability insurance, threats of lawsuits, and outside mandates... All so that Uncle Sam can swoop in and "save" people, in exchange for votes.

Well, the problem is that we all seek justice and social-equity through a very, VERY obfuscated system of laws. Totally agree that the litigiousness of some people/organizations just blows my mind.

I can't think of any good combination for a faith-based organization and the government anyways, so good riddance there. Churches, temples, and mosques should all be 100% private. They are plenty capable on their own to collect monetary donations from their communities. Lots of evidence to support that.

[IBCoupe]

Without addressing the issues around disinterested voters and voter turnout, it seems to me that interested parties are exactly the parties who ought to be making decisions about a thing. Imagine all the other public services that individuals benefit from that could fall prey to that kind of reasoning.

Heres the difference I see. The things I am pointing out are not roads, defense, they are public charities. Should I be able to go to the grocery store and hand out in front and be the one to decide how much the people put in my tin cup? Or should they be the ones to decide? If we are going to set up a system of public charities, which I have no problem with, that means we put those charities in the hands of a group that has the ability to use law enforcement power to acquire the funding for the charities. Should we then place the decisions for the quality and quantity of those services into the hands of the receiving parties? NO, those decisions should be left to the parties who are going to be footing the bill.

But it's not only in the hands of the benefiting parties - the decision is in the hands of all. You propose that we ought to take it out of the hands of only the people who benefit from it.

I would propose that, if you see a problem in social services, the problem isn't that people who use social services have an opportunity to work to ensure that those services continue to exist, it's that we have too many social services in the first place.

^ Nicely done.

With that said, I've always thought it humorous to see the lengths some will go to, to actively court a subset of the voting population that is statistically disinclined to actually vote. I mean, I know they have to do their due diligence, but at what cost?

Obviously you've never been a Democrat. They're gluttons for punishment.

But there was a time when it worked perfectly. Back before entitlement, greed, and political posturing took over.

I agree that if there is a community-based system competing with government-run options for welfare-related services, we should eliminate the government option.

My only problem with doing that is that then we then have a system where we hope that the downtrodden are helped. A public charity has the advantage of having some sort of legislated accountability, at least in theory. If a public charity does something you don't like, they are, ultimately, answerable to you and your neighbors via the people that write their checks who want to be reelected. If a private charity does something you don't like, the most you can do is to stop funding them, and hope to convince as many people as possible.

If a public charity is given a task, it is mandated by law to perform it. If a private charity is given a task, it is mandated by whatever individual morality it chooses to do whatever that individual morality requires. A public charity also faces stricter rules regarding discrimination and distribution of aid. A private charity does not to the same extent.

It's entirely possible that a private charity may be less bureaucratic than a public charity, and so may be more effective, but it's not like there's nothing gained out of a public charity. You get greater guarantees of good, not because they try harder, but because they've got the US Government leaning on them to do what they're paid to do.

In theory, at least.

[mattblancarte]

I can definitely empathize with not trusting the private-sector to really handle the level of charity required in some cases.

I personally don't give any money to bums, street performers, etc. I occasionally make charitable donations through my personal funds or on behalf of my business, though. I could give way way wayyyy more, but I choose not to. I am trying to better my own situation (and future situation) and the situation(s) of those I care about, which takes priority over feeding strangers.

However, knowing that a small portion of my tax payments are going towards keeping poor families and poor kids full of food doesn't really feel like a violation or a misuse of my money. That's just me, though.

[audtatious]

IB - sorry for the quiz format, not trying to be irritating, just different, trying to stimulate some discussion

Good luck with that. I did it for a while and was not worth the constant BS. Since that time the forum has pretty much died.

[stebo0728]

"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime". That says alot. And if this country is going to survive we HAVE to get back to some personal responsibility. We have to educate our children that their live will equal a product of the choices they will make. We cant keep increasing the dependence on government to A) tell us what to do (in our best intrest) B) spend our money because we think they do a better job than we do. We cant be the nanny state, we have to be the big brother state, the state willing to smack us upside the head and say "Get a Job", or "stop smocking crack", or whatever else "tough love" needs to be administered. Anyone can fall on hard times, and thats what the aid is for, but its not there for career moochers, people who have more kids just to get bigger checks, or who know all the other ways to milk the system. We have taken personal responsibility completely out of the equation. We let the government tell us how to run our lives, and then we expect to be bailed out if we screw it up. Lets man up as a society, realize that we are responsible for ourselves, to make our own way in this world, and that the government only needs to settle our disputes, and make sure the big bad other countries leave us alone. As far as I am concerned we can make our own roads, settle our own retirement, get our own insurance (and suffer the consequences if we dont) We arent solitarian organisms, but we arent hive organisms either.

[IBCoupe]

A lot of people say their forums have died. Granted, I have only been here for just over a year now, but it seems to me to be alive and kicking. This is in comparison to other forums that I've been on, including that other Nissan forum, which truly is an intellectual wasteland.

[IBCoupe]

"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime". That says alot. And if this country is going to survive we HAVE to get back to some personal responsibility. We have to educate our children that their live will equal a product of the choices they will make. We cant keep increasing the dependence on government to A) tell us what to do (in our best intrest) B) spend our money because we think they do a better job than we do. We cant be the nanny state, we have to be the big brother state, the state willing to smack us upside the head and say "Get a Job", or "stop smocking crack", or whatever else "tough love" needs to be administered. Anyone can fall on hard times, and thats what the aid is for, but its not there for career moochers, people who have more kids just to get bigger checks, or who know all the other ways to milk the system. We have taken personal responsibility completely out of the equation. We let the government tell us how to run our lives, and then we expect to be bailed out if we screw it up. Lets man up as a society, realize that we are responsible for ourselves, to make our own way in this world, and that the government only needs to settle our disputes, and make sure the big bad other countries leave us alone. As far as I am concerned we can make our own roads, settle our own retirement, get our own insurance (and suffer the consequences if we dont) We arent solitarian organisms, but we arent hive organisms either.

I think here's where your views sort of ditch the mainstream, Stebo. I think that there are inherent risks to society at large with privatization on the scale you allude to, and I think most people would find those risks quite objectionable.

If we were to privatize all roads, for example, what happens when certain parts of the country become completely off-limits? Or if they are restricted to only those who can pay the tolls levied upon them? What are the consequences of not having insurance? Being denied treatment for want of a means to pay for it? What happens when the poor die in our streets and spread disease, unchecked? If we go beyond your examples, why not privatize the military, or police, or firefighters? Would it be that only those who were able to pay would benefit from their existence?

Honestly, it looks like your views on government and social services in particular are hyper-focused on the abuses that exist in the system. I bet that if I were to apply a similar logic to, say, firearms that you'd be singing a very different tune. And, in reality, you sound a lot like those coworkers of mine, again. Are you sure you're not them? Do you own a '60-something Corvair?

And when I say that your views are extreme, Stebo, I hope you don't take offense to it. It's refreshing.

[stebo0728]

I take no offense at all from having my views labeled extreme, independence from England was once labeled an extreme view, the sun centered solar system was once labeled and extreme view. Furthermore I dont get offended really about anything from discussion such as these, so its all good

The fact that Im ok with us handling our own roads doesnt necessarily imply that my desire is to that end, I just mean if thats the way it was it wouldnt bother me. If business was suffereing from a regions poor roads, the unimpeded marketplace would handle the shortfall, someone would see the opportunity to benefit personally from fixing it, and they would step up and do it. This world is driven by people trying to better themselves, whether thats is an inconvenient truth I leave up to you. As people better themselves, they better others along the way. Small entrepreneur business provides most of the jobs in our society, and thats all people looking our for number 1, and that works fine because they create jobs for others.

As far as consequences for no insurance, I suppose denial of treatment could be one of em. With the exception of minor children who cant provide their own coverage, whats the problem here? Are you entitled to that treatment whether you can pay for it or not? In my opinion no, and if you arent responsible enough to make provisions for the coverage, then you try to get help, and if someone is willing to help that is great, if not, then thats that.

The lack of private sector charity stems from the rise of the "gimme" generation. The private sector is conservative, not wasteful, and when they began seeing charity going to people who didnt need it, or who took it and didnt better their situation with it, they got tired of dishing it out, then the public sector had to step in. If we roll back and usher in an age of renewed personal responsibility, with aid when necessary, but on a limited basis, and if you dont make the initiative to better your situation, then you just end up the way you've left yourself.

[stebo0728]

Not to mention sometimes I have a bad habit of playing devil's advocate without announcing so ... lol

[audtatious]

A lot of people say their forums have died. Granted, I have only been here for just over a year now, but it seems to me to be alive and kicking. This is in comparison to other forums that I've been on, including that other Nissan forum, which truly is an intellectual wasteland.

I was talking about the political forum here

[IBCoupe]

I take no offense at all from having my views labeled extreme, independence from England was once labeled an extreme view, the sun centered solar system was once labeled and extreme view. Furthermore I dont get offended really about anything from discussion such as these, so its all good

Good to know!

The fact that Im ok with us handling our own roads doesnt necessarily imply that my desire is to that end, I just mean if thats the way it was it wouldnt bother me. If business was suffereing from a regions poor roads, the unimpeded marketplace would handle the shortfall, someone would see the opportunity to benefit personally from fixing it, and they would step up and do it. This world is driven by people trying to better themselves, whether thats is an inconvenient truth I leave up to you. As people better themselves, they better others along the way. Small entrepreneur business provides most of the jobs in our society, and thats all people looking our for number 1, and that works fine because they create jobs for others.

My mistake. I often state "Yeah, I'd be okay with that" without advocating it outright, and I know how it is to be misinterpreted. My apologies.

I'm just curious as to how poor roads can become better if the landowner doesn't make them that way.

As far as consequences for no insurance, I suppose denial of treatment could be one of em. With the exception of minor children who cant provide their own coverage, whats the problem here? Are you entitled to that treatment whether you can pay for it or not? In my opinion no, and if you arent responsible enough to make provisions for the coverage, then you try to get help, and if someone is willing to help that is great, if not, then thats that.

I hope you won't begrudge me the hyperbole: dead adults, rotting in the streets seems like it might be of public interest.

The lack of private sector charity stems from the rise of the "gimme" generation. The private sector is conservative, not wasteful, and when they began seeing charity going to people who didnt need it, or who took it and didnt better their situation with it, they got tired of dishing it out, then the public sector had to step in. If we roll back and usher in an age of renewed personal responsibility, with aid when necessary, but on a limited basis, and if you dont make the initiative to better your situation, then you just end up the way you've left yourself.

I don't know where that account of history comes from; it's not something I've ever encountered before.

I was talking about the political forum here

Ah, fair enough.

[Jesda]

I discourage voting. It dilutes the effectiveness of my vote and invites too many of the uneducated or ill-informed to make important decisions.