Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

It isn't exactly easy (and often not possible) to have someone declared insane in the U.S.A.

[Neonivek]

I mean the only intelligence test that could possibly be used in the USA for voting would be a literacy test (does the USA have the literacy test?)

[NullForceOmega]

No, but the U.S.A. has a 75% functional illiteracy rate as of ~2007.  Requirements for voting is bad and should be crushed before some asshole with actual power decides to try implementing it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Doesn't the USA already have a system in place where if you are... well... deemed insane you can't vote?

Only in some states, and only by court-order. It's not a regular thing, and you retain the indefinite right to appeal.

I mean the only intelligence test that could possibly be used in the USA for voting would be a literacy test (does the USA have the literacy test?)

No, and it's strictly prohibited under the Voting Rights Act to administer any form of test to voters, especially literacy tests as they were the ones used for disenfranchisement. Examples of such tests include writing the entire Constitution from memory or Morton's Fork questions, and were typically only administered to blacks and on occasion poor whites on the basis that everybody else could be assumed to be literate.

[Reelya]

Whatever criteria you put in as to voting limits, at least one faction will seek to deny that opportunity to everyone as a way to limit the number of people they need to appeal to, to win office.

e.g. if a college degree is needed, then they'll ramp up the cost of college tuition to reduce the voter base, and in doing so they free up money that can then be promised to the existing, smaller, base of college graduates. And it'll sell, too, as the current college graduates won't be keen on there being more college graduates reducing the value of their votes and their share of the treasure.

You just create a stronger have/have-not divide along whatever line you draw.

As another example, what if the criteria was physical fitness. if you are healthy and exceed some benchmark fitness you get a vote. If not, then not. Do you think the fit people will vote to spend more money on building gyms and getting the unfit to be fit? Why should they? It's only watering down their own vote and rewarding those who are currently unfit, who the fit people usually look down on. And since the system will inherently hold that fit people are more worthy than the unfit, average joe fitness will have added reasons to dislike the unfit, since they are inherently inferior.

have/have-not prejudice is rife in society. Any criteria that says someone is "worth" more basic rights than someone else will just accelerate this sort of prejudice.

[Neonivek]

The only popular limits I know of are

1) Citizen based: For example only second generation or even third generation immigrants can vote.
and
2) Age upper limit: Mostly that once you hit a certain age, you cannot vote because you "don't have to live with the consequences"

[wierd]

Limited sufferage was the very first form of democracy. Look up how Athens did it. Practically starship troopers in implementation.

[Neonivek]

Let me see... Athens

Needed to be at least a second generation fit male. Though you could be, through exceptional service, be voted into being allowed to vote.

Athens also let you kick people out if you didn't like them... and had a sort of Mafioso thing going on.

---

But then again Athen's biggest difference between how it ran its democracy and everyone else is that...  Everyone was involved with democracy to some extent (and not just by voting and sentencing).

[wierd]

Not quite.

Required males who had completed a certain degree of military service-- hence the starship troopers like angle. specifically, they had to complete the training while they were still teenagers.

and yes-- it had SERIOUS issues.

That is kinda the problem with excluding a set of disfavored voices from the discussion; they will always, ultimately, be discriminated against.

[misko27]

Doesn't the USA already have a system in place where if you are... well... deemed insane you can't vote?

As a City (State? Party?) Election worker in the City of New York, I can confirm that anyone able to show up who shows up in our filing may vote. There are rules and regulations whereby I (as an election worker, although legally anyone allowed in the site also holds this right) may challenge any voter, for any reason, including no reason at all. Being challenged does not prevent you from voting, however, it merely puts a person into a double-check such that the city will review later whether they had the right to vote at the time. If you are found to have misrepresented who you are or your legal ability to vote (either in general or in my district in particular) you will be arrested and charged with perjury, as well as probably other stuff. However, as election workers we are also on guard for any seniors, elderly, or the disabled, such that their rights to vote are not infringed, and that whoever is assisting them is not using them for a vote (which, unfortunately, happens). But to answer your question no. There's no legal determination of sanity that bars you from voting as far as I am aware. The only determination that matters is whether you are currently committed to a psych ward, and only then because you can't physically show up (and these people may be able to vote for all I know, I'll ask next time I'm in one.) I, for one, aided an autistic man and his mother vote.

It's also my chance to say I got to see Tiffany Trump at my polling place. She was there for a grand total of five seconds it seemed (I remember a pink and blonde flash as she passed, followed by the scent of perfume). Incidentally, much less cool than meeting former Mayor Dinkins.

Limited sufferage was the very first form of democracy. Look up how Athens did it. Practically starship troopers in implementation.

Athens and the other greek city states were all just that: city states, and the Polis is not necessarily a very helpful model for countries much larger than St. Marino. So even ceteris paribus (and needless to say, there's been 2000 years of stuff since then, so ceteris non paribus but work with me here), it's not necessarily wise to look to Athens on this issue. Frankly I'm of the opinion that its barely worth discussing.

The only popular limits I know of are

1) Citizen based: For example only second generation or even third generation immigrants can vote.

Isn't this just restricting the vote to whoever has citizenship? Doesn't everybody do that? Or are you proposing that voting rights be restricted in jus soli states? Can you think of a legitimate reason why legal citizens of a country should not have voting rights because their parents were not born here, or even their grandparents? I mean in a jus sanguinous situation that's another thing entirely, but why use jus soli citizenship and jus sanguinous voting rights? Are you purposely trying to create a class of second-class citizens?

I mean that's so incredibly broad it even manages to disenfranchise me, and if anyone deserves the right to vote, it's me (in fact, I'm of the opinion that I'm the only person who should have the right to vote, but sadly this view has not yet caught on among leading constitutional scholars.)

[Neonivek]

Because the USA has an idea that foreigners are actively working against them all the time and cannot be trusted.

The US has several laws the enforce that mindset... but they still typically allow any citizen to vote.

Isn't this just restricting the vote to whoever has citizenship? Doesn't everybody do that?

No it is that only Citizens who are AT LEAST second OR third generation (or more) can vote.

Actually I think... the USA used to have that...

Though I believe they removed that law before removing the law prohibiting women from voting...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You know Neon, there's a difference for what you feel like might have been true and what's actually fact.

[Neonivek]

You know Neon, there's a difference for what you feel like might have been true and what's actually fact.

Ok, what part of it was wrong?

Come on, challenge it. I dare you.

If you are looking it up, I was way ahead of you. I actually got it dead on.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is not, nor has there ever been, a generational restriction on citizenship. The requirements for citizenship are baked right into the Constitution and are intended to absorb even first-gen immigrants as citizens.

There's also no one law preventing women from voting, and the prohibition was an unstated presumption until the suffrage movement. This is why Wyoming famously always allowed women to vote, and about half the states passed suffrage before the 19th Amendment

[Neonivek]

1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 allows white men born outside of the United States to become citizens with the right to vote.

But White men born inside the US can become citizens before that.