Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Bradskii]

That will never happen. Democrats are too determined to let anyone vote, with no safeguards

That should read 'everyone', not 'anyone'. And we do have age restrictions and likewise restrict, in some cases, those with severe mental problems (I have no to idea how that is determined - and I will pass on the obvious political joke). Plus felons of course.

Do you think the list of those excluded should be longer? What do the Republicans think?

 

[BPPLEE]

That should read 'everyone', not 'anyone'. And we do have age restrictions and likewise restrict, in some cases, those with severe mental problems (I have no to idea how that is determined - and I will pass on the obvious political joke). Plus felons of course.

Do you think the list of those excluded should be longer? What do the Republicans think?

A person has to have been adjudicated mentally Ill. I don’t think requiring ID is unreasonable. There are so many things you have to have ID for.

 

[Bradskii]

There are so many things you have to have ID for.

That's a different matter to who do you think should be excluded. And by the way, we don't need ID down here when we vote. We just get our name ticked off on a list of the registered electors. Works just fine.

But let's say that ID was required for the sake of discussion. Assuming everyone had it, would you exclude anyone?

 

[BPPLEE]

That's a different matter to who do you think should be excluded. And by the way, we don't need ID down here when we vote. We just get our name ticked off on a list of the registered electors. Works just fine.

But let's say that ID was required for the sake of discussion. Assuming everyone had it, would you exclude anyone?

Convicted felons, people adjudicated mentally Ill and non citizens. And I would pay an additional tax so that everyone who can’t afford it would be given a free state issued ID

 

[Ana the Ist]

Those aren't strawmen.

Those are strawman.

By definition, they aren't the argument he's making.

I am imagining queues forming of people eager to do the test so that they can only then vote.

If you don't know what a policy is...how would you know what you're voting for?

Those votes are already legally barred. There is no need for two laws for the one.

Cool....well as soon as we take the measures that common sense would ensure we do to prevent fraud I'll gladly shut up about it.

Voting integrity is already insured, at least as far as the law is concerned.

No it's not. Every election involves candidates who claim to have been beaten by "stolen" elections.

Why not?

Because they under punishment of the state, and any offers to remove those punishments should not be determined by the punished.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That will never happen. Democrats are too determined to let anyone vote, with no safeguards

We need to be "protected" from certain voters?

Seems to defeat the notion of the people selecting their leaders and representatives.

 

[partinobodycular]

Every election involves candidates who claim to have been beaten by "stolen" elections.

Then maybe what we need isn't a litmus test for voters, but rather a litmus test for candidates.

 

[Bradskii]

Convicted felons, people adjudicated mentally Ill and non citizens. And I would pay an additional tax so that everyone who can’t afford it would be given a free state issued ID

I've no problem with that.

 

[Whyayeman]

You don’t understand why felons can’t vote? Surely you jest

I think universal suffrage demands it. I understand why convicts (not all of whom are felons, or even found guilty) are disenfranchised. It is mainly historic in the UK; it happened accidentally when the suffrage was extended in the Nineteenth Century. I would be interested in seeing a coherent case against.

If you don't know what a policy is...how would you know what you're voting for?

If a knowledge of policies was a necessary qualification the electorate would be severely reduced. People vote for a variety of reasons and often quite irrationally.

Then maybe what we need isn't a litmus test for voters, but rather a litmus test for candidates.

Yes. How about the electoral process as part of democracy? If there is a better test we should be told.

 

[BPPLEE]

We need to be "protected" from certain voters?

Seems to defeat the notion of the people selecting their leaders and representatives.

We need to be protected from fraud

 

[o_mlly]

Those aren't strawmen. Those were the exact kinds of arguments made in the past about voter restrictions. You find some of them disgusting, don't you, and you don't want your ideas paired up with them? Too bad.

After looking up the definition of the fallacious "srawman" argument, you'll understand why your post is of that ilk.

You tend to often color an argument that you do not like as “disgusting”. Disgust is a matter of taste not truth. I must post again that I cannot argue with the condition of your stomach but I can argue only with how you think. Do give some critical thinking to the argument offered and provide a principled argument in rebuttal.

 

[o_mlly]

You've suggested that we should exclude those who are a net drain on the state (which would include me at the moment) and you've seen that it didn't get any support. Maybe you have another suggestion for exclusion...

It appears only three posters have opposed the suggestion (attempt at mobbing?) and none has posted an opposing principled argument.

I made the suggestion in the context that unless the political power in the USA is modified that all our citizens face a catastrophic financial collapse. Sooner than later, the US Treasury will hold an auction attempting again to roll over our huge and expanding debt and no or few buyers will show up. Our choices at that point will be to print money, or renounce the debt, or confiscate private wealth, or drastically cut entitlements, or drastically cut defense expenditures.

I noted that a financial plan to effectively manage the debt was put forward (Simpson-Bowles recommendations of 2009) but unfortunately not enacted because our politicians (both liberal and conservative) believe that any initiative or attempt to modify our major social programs is political suicide. And, they are likely correct. So, how do we help our politicians to summon up the will to do the right thing, ie, act now injecting as little pain as necessary to avoid the extreme pain of a financial collapse, a pain that will fall mostly on those least able to bear it.

We've determined that suffrage is not a universal right, and that exclusion is not a mala per se so my suggestion that disconnects the politicians' fear of political suicide (not the beneficiaries from the programs) is possible.

Maybe you have another suggestion ...?

 

[o_mlly]

Suffrage is a legal right for all (with exceptions as noted).

You do see that the above statement is cognitively dissonant? If suffrage is a legal right for all then there can be no exceptions.

 

[o_mlly]

If you want to change that legal right for all then you need to convince us that there are reasonable grounds for doing so. You haven't yet.

Please read all the posts; not just the ones that cheer you up. Reasonable grounds have been posted.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you saying that we can treat people differently as to their rights if they are, in some sense, unequal? Do we restrict their right to free speech? Or to life and liberty? Their right to education and health?

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.

 

[Whyayeman]

We've determined that suffrage is not a universal right

Well, you have, o.mlly. You have not really demonstrated the assertion to be true. You appear to think that there is a logical justification for it but society is not merely logical.

There is nothing logical about any of the values most of us live by. Justice, fairness, kindness to strangers, tolerance of difference; these are values. Those without them are generally disliked, pitied, and ultimately shunned by society, despite the difficulty of logically justifying them.

I think you are straining to justify what is actually untenable in your own country. Where democratic processes don't exist they are despised and thwarted by those in power and yearned for by the powerless, usually downtrodden, populace.

I want to make democracy better, more efficient, more representative of the people it is meant to serve and more achievable by those who have to live without it.

Churchill believed democracy was the best, as the OP inferred.

 

[o_mlly]

... You have not really demonstrated the assertion to be true. ...

There is nothing logical about any of the values most of us live by. ...

Where democratic processes don't exist they are despised and thwarted by those in power and yearned for by the powerless, usually downtrodden, populace ...

I want to make democracy better, more efficient, more representative of the people it is meant to serve and more achievable by those who have to live without it.

Gotta say:
1) Read the posts to see your error.
2) So you don't live your life recognizing that justice is a reasonable (logical) value?
3) It appears you have little faith in the basic goodness of your fellow human beings.
4) I also like motherhood and apple pie
But to spare me having to repost much of the thread for your sake, I'll end with: "If you say so, Whyayeman".

 

[Hans Blaster]

We need to be protected from fraud

Certain people voting is "fraud"? Really?

 

[BPPLEE]

Certain people voting is "fraud"? Really?

Yes, convicted felons, dead people, non citizens and people who vote multiple times in one election

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, convicted felons, dead people, non citizens and people who vote multiple times in one election

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.