Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Voting using a deceased person’s name is not fraud? Lying about your criminal record is not fraud? Lying about your citizenship is not fraud?All except the last are not inherently fraud, only things that are not permitted (so if they do vote it would be fraudulent). The last item is exceedingly rare.
Voting using a deceased person’s name is not fraud? Lying about your criminal record is not fraud? Lying about your citizenship is not fraud?
Either you edited your post or I didn’t see what you put in parenthesesOf course it is, but none of this has to do with the scope of who is allowed to vote, just those who violate the scope.
In most states they can’t vote unless they have the right restoredHow is a felon voting “fraud”? (c.f. Vermont and Maine where incarcerated felons have the franchise)
There are some people who are not allowed to vote. What is moot about that? Maybe you just felt the need to post something.But it’s not universal so maybe your points above are moot?
Then maybe what we need isn't a litmus test for voters, but rather a litmus test for candidates.
For disenfranchising sections of the electorate? No, I don't.Maybe you have another suggestion ...?
Of course it is, but none of this has to do with the scope of who is allowed to vote, just those who violate the scope.
I don't want my grandkids voting. So they're included in the exceptions with which nobody disagrees. Including you.You do see that the above statement is cognitively dissonant? If suffrage is a legal right for all then there can be no exceptions.
I was talking about what you have posted. I haven't seen a reasonable position yet.Please read all the posts; not just the ones that cheer you up. Reasonable grounds have been posted.
But none of those things are relevant to only those that you term unequal. Which is the point we are discussing. They apply to everyone. Your specific definition of unequal doesn't allow us to take away any of those rights. Including the right to vote.Yes, yes, yes and yes. We do restrict rights which are not absolute and those that are funded by the commonwealth.
One cannot legally lie under oath, one cannot scream fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, our prisons exist to restrict the freedom of prisoners, some states still allow capital punishment, one cannot pursue advanced education beyond secondary school on the public, and healthcare procedures beyond those approved by the state are not funded by the public.
Playing the devil's advocate here...but it's reasonable to take away a person's right to freedom if he has broken the law. But does that mean we can take away other rights as well? There's obviously justification for incarceration. Partly it's punishment. If we take away the right to vote then I see no other reason than it being a further punishment.Who benefits from allowing convicted felons to vote?
Who benefits from allowing convicted felons to vote?
It is a privilege that you lose when you commit certain crimes, just like owning firearms.Playing the devil's advocate here...but it's reasonable to take away a person's right to freedom if he has broken the law. But does that mean we can take away other rights as well? There's obviously justification for incarceration. Partly it's punishment. If we take away the right to vote then I see no other reason than it being a further punishment.
Playing the devil's advocate here...but it's reasonable to take away a person's right to freedom if he has broken the law.
But does that mean we can take away other rights as well?
If we take away the right to vote then I see no other reason than it being a further punishment.
The people who benefit from universal suffrage.Who benefits from allowing convicted felons to vote?
It is. But why? I can understand the reason in taking away the right to a firearm if the person has shown that he might be violent. But what reason would there be from taking away the right to vote? Other than being a further punishment.It is a privilege that you lose when you commit certain crimes, just like owning firearms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?