BoogeyMan 0 #51 December 10, 2011 Repealing the 19th Amendment should dry up that population. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #52 December 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteand my point is.... I disagree with you. I'm sure you think that now but if the law was changed and you saw the effects of what you propose, I have no doubt you would be back on here ranting about all the criminal politicians being elected by felons. I'm sure you think that now but if the law was changed and you saw the effects of what he proposes, you wouldn't notice a blind bit of difference. I'm sure you think that now but I'm sure once you give it some thought that you will realize that our voting system has enough problems now without adding convicted felons into the mix. Do you support convicted felons running for office too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #53 December 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand my point is.... I disagree with you. I'm sure you think that now but if the law was changed and you saw the effects of what you propose, I have no doubt you would be back on here ranting about all the criminal politicians being elected by felons. I'm sure you think that now but if the law was changed and you saw the effects of what he proposes, you wouldn't notice a blind bit of difference. I'm sure you think that now but I'm sure once you give it some thought that you will realize that our voting system has enough problems now without adding convicted felons into the mix. I'm sure you think that now but I'm sure once you give it some thought that you will realize there just aren't enough of them to matter. Even in the Land Of The Free.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #54 December 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand my point is.... I disagree with you. I'm sure you think that now but if the law was changed and you saw the effects of what you propose, I have no doubt you would be back on here ranting about all the criminal politicians being elected by felons. I'm sure you think that now but if the law was changed and you saw the effects of what he proposes, you wouldn't notice a blind bit of difference. I'm sure you think that now but I'm sure once you give it some thought that you will realize that our voting system has enough problems now without adding convicted felons into the mix. I'm sure you think that now but I'm sure once you give it some thought that you will realize there just aren't enough of them to matter. Even in the Land Of The Free. I'm sure once you think this through that you will concede there's some probability that in certain areaa with high crime rates where many of the felons belong to gangs that the potential for electing gang members tooffice by other gang members is too great and that it could have the effect of making the honest citizen feel DISENFRANCHISED. You know how important it is that people not feel disenfranchised, don't you? Especially, those who live in the inner city where such abuse would more likely occur. I'm sure you would agree it's not worth the risk, wouldn't you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #55 December 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand my point is.... I disagree with you. I'm sure you think that now but if the law was changed and you saw the effects of what you propose, I have no doubt you would be back on here ranting about all the criminal politicians being elected by felons. I'm sure you think that now but if the law was changed and you saw the effects of what he proposes, you wouldn't notice a blind bit of difference. I'm sure you think that now but I'm sure once you give it some thought that you will realize that our voting system has enough problems now without adding convicted felons into the mix. I'm sure you think that now but I'm sure once you give it some thought that you will realize there just aren't enough of them to matter. Even in the Land Of The Free. I'm sure once you think this through that you will concede there's some probability that in certain areaa with high crime rates where many of the felons belong to gangs that the potential for electing gang members tooffice by other gang members is too great and that it could have the effect of making the honest citizen feel DISENFRANCHISED. Except that even if that situation occured they wouldn't be DISENFRANCHISED. Not getting the guy you voted for because more people voted for the other guy is not DISENFRANCHISEMENT. Hey, maybe you should stop Mormons from voting in Utah - wouldn't want any non-cult members to feel DISENFRANCHISED. QuoteYou know how important it is that people not feel disenfranchised, don't you? Nope. Is it more important than not being disenfranchised (which is what you're supporting)? QuoteI'm sure you would agree it's not worth the risk, wouldn't you? You're sure? Why, when everything I've written points to the exact opposite conclusion, would you be sure of such a thing? You've not been paying attention, have you?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #56 December 10, 2011 Quote Do you support convicted felons running for office too? Yes. Otherwise it is possible to permanently remove political opponents by serving up a trumped up charge. They do it in Pakistan quite regularly. BTW In Britain Bobby Sands was elected while serving time for being a terrorist. He never took his seat as he was on a hunger strike at the time and died shortly after the election. The point is the people of that riding sent a very powerful message to Westminster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #57 December 10, 2011 Quotethere are plenty of places that have corrupt governments where felons cannot vote. I put it to you that there is little, if any statistical correlation or causation to suggest that felons voting would in ANY WAY change that. If you are American, you already earned the right to vote. The right to vote should be absolute. No one and no government should be able or allowed to take that away from you, period. This is my belief and it is the cornerstone of democracy. If you allow rules to come into play, then you also allow those 'rules' to be expanded and perhaps to no end - allowing the population that is able to vote to itself become a 'popular vote'. Why then do you think that there should be a federal law that you have to be at least 18. Why not allow 3 year olds to vote? Obviously we do have to draw limits, and just because we have some, doesn't mean its going to ever expand and exclude the vast majority. There's a world of grey between "everyone can vote" and "a select few can vote."You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #58 December 11, 2011 So you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #59 December 11, 2011 If the voters want to vote for the guy with a record why shouldn't they be allowed to? To disqualify people from running denies a choice for the rest of the voters, no? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #60 December 11, 2011 Given your line of reasoning, if the voters want to elect Hu Jintao, President, what's wrong with that? After all, the voters should always get what they want because they always know what's best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #61 December 11, 2011 Quote Do you support convicted felons running for office too? Marion Barry - crack, stalking, accused of rape, 6 months in prison, re-elected in D.C. Oh, I dunnoMy reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #62 December 11, 2011 QuoteGiven your line of reasoning, if the voters want to elect Hu Jintao, President, what's wrong with that? After all, the voters should always get what they want because they always know what's best. You're under a severe misconception. Voters rarely know what's best. Sometimes, they have a glimmer of what's less evil.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #63 December 11, 2011 You missed the sarcasm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #64 December 11, 2011 Well, there would have to be a majority of voters in enough states to change the constitution to allow a foreigner to run, but yes, if that is what the American people want then they should get it. Didn't you guys fight a revolution over that concept? If you are not in favour of democracy what do you suggest? Perhaps the US should return to being under the protection of Her Majesty, the Defender of the Faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #65 December 11, 2011 Quote Well, there would have to be a majority of voters in enough states to change the constitution to allow a foreigner to run, but yes, if that is what the American people want then they should get it. Didn't you guys fight a revolution over that concept? If you are not in favour of democracy what do you suggest? Perhaps the US should return to being under the protection of Her Majesty, the Defender of the Faith. Right, because those are the only two choices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #66 December 11, 2011 Oh no, there are many choices. You could replace universal suffrage with a means test. Or you could eliminate the middleman by replacing the House of Representatives with the Forbes List.What is your favoured replacement for democracy. Who should make the decisions if not the citizens? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #67 December 11, 2011 I don't think convicted felons should have any say in what direction this country goes in except for what I outlined in an earlier post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #68 December 11, 2011 QuoteSo you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. So you support the beating of wives and children. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #69 December 11, 2011 Quote...ou will realize that our voting system has enough problems now without adding convicted felons... what sort of 'problems and how would they be further 'enhanced' by allowing felons to vote? My advocacy would be for everyone to be allowed to vote - essentially alleviating all the problems we have today, i.e. voter lists, and all the rules that we are debating here varying county by county, which in itself is voter fraud IMO.etc. ID and and a blue thumbprint. I like that idea. KISS should be the motto. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #70 December 11, 2011 QuoteWhy then do you think that there should be a federal law that you have to be at least 18. I did not say that specifically but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I simply supported the current age limit. I would have no problem with 15 years olds being able to vote except that they are still minors and under the 'parental control' of their parents, which in some ways could affect the outcome of their vote. They do not have the same legal rights as adults in some areas, and in some ways they have more legal rights. Assuming that teenagers would have the same legal protections for voting, I would have no problem with that. Even 14 year olds would be fine. Imagine the marketing on TV, McDonalds would have to tune their ads to not only mckids meals but also their favorite candidate..... But since the age limit is not or was not an issue in the thread, I see your attempt simply at a diversion from the actual thread intention which was idiots and insane people. My objection is to the subjective judgement of people by other people as to their ability to vote. period. If someone can make up a rule that says someone else cannot vote, then they can make up a rule that says I cannot vote - and I object to that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #71 December 11, 2011 QuoteGiven your line of reasoning, if the voters want to elect Hu Jintao, President, what's wrong with that? After all, the voters should always get what they want because they always know what's best. Well as far as elections go, YES that is exactly what it is about. We fight for the Palestinians running a democracy and then they DO run a democracy and then we criticize the government they elect. Same in Afghanistan and soon to be the same in Iraq. Can't have it both ways, you do not get to have democracy and then decide that you do not like the choice of the leader chosen through a fair and equal election. The route is to have another election to solve that problem. It sounds more and more to me like you do not actually want democracy - you just want the 'chosen' democracy that YOU believe in, regardless of what the actual Constitution might say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #72 December 11, 2011 Since when is advocating a country be run according to it's Constitution anti-democracy? There is a reason we have a Constitution, can you figure out why? I prefer that to your free-for-all, mosh pit society where everything goes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #73 December 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy then do you think that there should be a federal law that you have to be at least 18. I did not say that specifically but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I simply supported the current age limit. I would have no problem with 15 years olds being able to vote except that they are still minors and under the 'parental control' of their parents, which in some ways could affect the outcome of their vote. They do not have the same legal rights as adults in some areas, and in some ways they have more legal rights. Assuming that teenagers would have the same legal protections for voting, I would have no problem with that. Even 14 year olds would be fine. Imagine the marketing on TV, McDonalds would have to tune their ads to not only mckids meals but also their favorite candidate..... But since the age limit is not or was not an issue in the thread, I see your attempt simply at a diversion from the actual thread intention which was idiots and insane people. My objection is to the subjective judgement of people by other people as to their ability to vote. period. If someone can make up a rule that says someone else cannot vote, then they can make up a rule that says I cannot vote - and I object to that. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but you said a bit back, the only, "'restriction' that should allow you to vote is that you are an American citizen and perhaps age of majority or whatever 18 year old as it is today. period. that is it. It should be a federal law. " As for the intention of the post, it wasn't to just add in a diversion from idiots & the insane, it was to illustrate that we do indeed have and need to set limits on who and who cannot vote. We both agree then, that say a 1 year old should not be allowed to vote, no matter how well they might be able to scribble on a piece of paper or push a button. So, we've now made a rule that says someone else cannot vote. We've gone from "No rules that say someone cannot vote" to "A rule (or some) that people cannot vote." Point being, you don't really believe in no rules. With that established, the natural follow up is just deciding where the gray is between, "No one can vote" and "Everyone can vote." Getting back to the idiots and felons specifically, those aren't exactly subjective. Certain criteria has to be met for a person to be labeled as such. For the foremost, you'd have to have 2 separate MDs and a judge rule against the person -- and that's assuming no contest from either the family or the person in question. And for the latter, let's not forget the person has to commit a rather serious crime to start. It's not like your going to go 5 mph over the speed limit and suddenly lose your right to vote. I said it before, why should someone who thinks its okay to rape 2 females and burn them alive in their home (the guy just got the death penalty for it) ever have the same sway (i.e. 1 vote) as someone who doesn't do that? Why should he have any pull in the lives of others? Ultimately, however, if your sole objection is down the future, someone might make a rule that excludes you, well, in the future a lot of things "might" happen based on any number of laws out there. We can't go around living in fear of the absolute extreme, and a lot would have to take place in the US to start excluding fully competent, adult, non-felon people from voting. There's not a politician out there that would suggest it, let alone get any support for it, because the voters would crucify them.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #74 December 11, 2011 QuoteAnd for the latter, let's not forget the person has to commit a rather serious crime to start. It's not like your going to go 5 mph over the speed limit and suddenly lose your right to vote.Not necessarily. In some jurisdictions you can lose your right to vote for as little as $250 (quote from this source): "For example, in Massachusetts under penalties specified in MGL Chap. 266: Sec. 127,[16] a prosecution for malicious destruction of property can result in a felony conviction if the dollar amount of damage exceeds $250.[17] Some people would argue that $250 is excessively low and that since this dollar amount has not risen for many years, even damaging another's radio or cell phone could result in losing one's right to vote. If the dollar thresholds are not increased by law (or indexed to inflation), a conviction for what is effectively very little money could result in losing one's right to vote." Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #75 December 11, 2011 Quote You missed the sarcasm. I did.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
