BF2S Forums Should the US inact Voting requirements

How about only the non-corrupt politicians should be able to receive votes, or the politicians that actually have promised a bill thats good for the people and that have had that bill passed in the congress ?

That's a great idea. While they're at it, they can make it so women and coloreds can't vote either (what do they know about government anyway).

What happened to "all men are created equal"? If the president doesn't have to be the least bit smart, then why should the voters? It kinda sucks cuz the morons outnumber the sensible people 3-1, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a voice.

Btw, you're looking for the word "enact", which means put into effect.

BellusEndus wrote:

daffytag wrote:

I live in england, when Im gonna take my first vote, I will just do a random selection, except for the BNP (British National Party) Racist Twats.

Anyway WTF are you posting about government issues for?  BORING

He says in the "Debate and Serious Talk" forum.....you're clearly in the wrong place. And if you're going to vote randomly don't vote at all it completely defeats the purpose of the system. As does having requirements for voting, the problems are not to do with the general intelligence of voters but the way in which they are campaigned to, ie using big TV speaches and religion rather than real issues. Atleast thats my impression of presidential campaigns compaired to here in the UK, I'm sure you'll feel differently over there.

Sorry, Just saying it IMO

and taking a random vote, that was just a joke.

Current requirements are: Voter must be a citizen over the age of 18; and in some places felons are excluded.

I think that is sufficient.

If you have been convicted of a felony, you have demonstrated a lack of respect for the rule of law.  Do you really believe that felonious voters will exhibit a miraculous respect for their fellow man that other voters will not?  Surely, the opposite is more likely.

As Felons (especially the more egregious sort) have failed to respect the rights of others, others are relieved of the responsibility to observe theirs.  In other words, it is just and fair that they shouldn't get to vote.

As a side note, I understand that there are some 'crimes' which have nothing to do with violating the rights of others (such as using drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.) and I submit that these shouldn't be crimes in the first place.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-18 10:41:04)

Okay, so what you're saying is that if you disagree with a law to the point where you disregard it, you shouldn't have the chance to vote for change? I do believe that felonious voters who have served their sentences have a higher understanding of many of the the critical issues involved in politics, as they have experienced them first hand, and will have more legitimate votes than people who'd be just fine with every criminal being locked away forever for their own safety.

Your view on this is the same view that's making huge gaps between the rich and poor. You don't achieve anything by limiting the options of the people who're in touch with the issues, and instead leaving it to the uninformed and overly egotistical people on the other side of the wall.

Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-18 10:50:29)

Well, Major_Spittle, I'm sure that a whole lot of homeschooled individuals would disagree with you right there. I don't think any sane person could agree with you that some 18 year old kid fresh out of high school has more insight into how the world works than a 35 year old who never graduated. Having a grade does not make you smarter, and not having one most certainly does not in any way suggest that you're impaired when it comes to making informed decisions. Your views aren't more legitimate just because you can do long division. That has to be the most absurd thing I've ever heard in regards to education.

I completely fail to see how you can ever justify requiring EIGHTEEN years of citizenship in order to vote. I'm moving to the US in two years. I'll be 21 by then. Are you seriously suggesting that I not be able to vote until I'm thirty-nine years old? Why? Should I not be allowed to have a say in how my country should be run? Why shouldn't I have the same rights as my fellow citizens? I don't think a law like that would inspire a huge sense of patriotism, which seems to be what you're going for.

You pretty much just said that pacifists should have no right to vote. Great. While we're at it, why not just outlaw liberalism? Way to go. If a military background was required to vote, the US would realistically have a one party system.

Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-18 11:34:22)

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Okay, so what you're saying is that if you disagree with a law to the point where you disregard it, you shouldn't have the chance to vote for change?

No, I am saying that insofar as you have disregarded the rights of others (and thus disregarded your obligation to behave in a manner conducive to allowing society to function), you have freed others of the requirement to respect your right to contribute to society through voting.  Simply put, if you do not feel that you must conduct yourself in a civilized manner, you no longer accrue the benefits of civilization.  Put even more simply; I don't want rapists, batterers, murderers or perpetrators of fraud to decide how my government is going to function.  (They already have too much input, as they are disproportionately represented in the various legislatures.)

I SPECIFICALLY stated that crimes which had no victim, or are self-affecting only (i.e. those that do not violate the rights of others ) are not those which qualify, in my mind, as those which should disqualify one from voting.

If you think that rapists, batterers, murderers, and perpetrators of fraud, 'disagree with a law to the point where they disregard it,' and should have the chance to vote for change, I respectfully disagree.

Prisons are called "correctional facilities". If you don't have faith in their purpose, why are you supporting their existance? Most crimes have victims. I can't see how someone who committed insider trading should be denied the right to vote after serving out his sentence in a correctional facility.

mikkel wrote:

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Okay, so what you're saying is that if you disagree with a law to the point where you disregard it, you shouldn't have the chance to vote for change?

No, I am saying that insofar as you have disregarded the rights of others (and thus disregarded your obligation to behave in a manner conducive to allowing society to function), you have freed others of the requirement to respect your right to contribute to society through voting.  Simply put, if you do not feel that you must conduct yourself in a civilized manner, you no longer accrue the benefits of civilization.  Put even more simply; I don't want rapists, batterers, murderers or perpetrators of fraud to decide how my government is going to function.  (They already have too much input, as they are disproportionately represented in the various legislatures.)

I SPECIFICALLY stated that crimes which had no victim, or are self-affecting only (i.e. those that do not violate the rights of others ) are not those which qualify, in my mind, as those which should disqualify one from voting.

If you think that rapists, batterers, murderers, and perpetrators of fraud, 'disagree with a law to the point where they disregard it,' and should have the chance to vote for change, I respectfully disagree.

Prisons are called "correctional facilities". If you don't have faith in their purpose, why are you supporting their existance? Most crimes have victims. I can't see how someone who committed insider trading should be denied the right to vote after serving out his sentence in a correctional facility.

Ah.  So you DO believe that rapists, batterers, muderers and perpetrators of fraud simply disagree with a law to the point where they disregard it,' and should have the chance to vote for change.  Well, as noted above I disagree.

Did I say somewhere that I had faith in the purpose of correctional institutions OR that I supported their existence?  In fact I do support their existence, but have no faith in their purpose as an agent of reform; rather than simply as an agent of punishment.  On the whole, I have little faith in their ability to do anything else.

The rate of recidivism in this country is staggering, so if you think that 'correctional institutions' are actually doing any 'correcting', you need to look again.

In any case, as I said above, I believe there are many crimes without victims, or in which the victim and the perpetetrator are one in the same.  These crimes should not be crimes.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-18 11:57:35)

the problem is, congress is supposed to represent their constituents.  If certain demographics, particularly no HS diploma, are excluded, then they are no longer represented.

Remember from history class, "taxation without representation" is one of the main reason of the war of independence.

I agree, it would be great if every vote were an informed one.  It's a strange yet beautiful irony: if you live in the USA you have the right to be ignorant.  And there are people every day dying for your right to be a smacktard.

and that may frustrate me, but I am all for it, because without the option to be an idiot, there is nothing honorable about being informed.

mikkel wrote:

I have very little respect for people who need to put words in the mouths of others, but I'll ignore it in your case.

Like this?

mikkel wrote:

If you don't have faith in their purpose, why are you supporting their existance?

I had expressed no such faith or support when you wrote that.

I assume you are saying that this:

whittsend wrote:

Ah.  So you DO believe that rapists, batterers, muderers and perpetrators of fraud simply disagree with a law to the point where they disregard it,' and should have the chance to vote for change.  Well, as noted above I disagree.

Is putting words into your mouth.  It isn't.  Insider trading is a form of fraud, and you argued specifically that inside traders should be allowed to vote after their prison terms, and did not except the violent felons I had mentioned.

mikkel wrote:

You can give as many statistics regarding the behaviour of ex-convicts as you like, but the undeniable fact is that prisons are indeed correctional facilities, both in name and spirit.

It is entirely deniable, and not a fact at all.  I entirely disagree with what you have said here.  Most prisons make absolutely no attempt at any form of rehabilitation, bland mewlings of a correctional function notwithstanding.

mikkel wrote:

Whether they do a good job at correcting inmates is irrelevant, as the government has decided on how long it will take you to rehabilitate.

Actually, it is entirely relevant, and the government, in fact, decides how long felons are to be punished, not how long it will take them to rehabilitate.

mikkel wrote:

You can disagree as much as you like with this, but as long as they're correctional facilities, ex-convicts are to be considered rehabilitated by the government as long as they abide by the law like everyone else.

You can disagree as much as you like, but as long as several states decline to allow felons to vote, it is clear that they were only being punished, and are perceived as irredeemable.

mikkel wrote:

Your argument for denying them the right to vote is that you do not consider them rehabilitated, and while this might be the case, the government does,

Um, no it doesn't.  As I have already stated, in many states felons can't vote.  Furthermore, my argument for denying them the right to vote was explicitly stated as, "if you do not feel that you must conduct yourself in a civilized manner, you no longer accrue the benefits of civilization."  I thought you said you, "have very little respect for people who need to put words in the mouths of others"?

mikkel wrote:

If you want to change this, vote for a candidate who wants to change the definition and purpose of prisons, then vote for denying convicted criminals the right to vote.

Instead of voting for hypocritical and contradicting legislation, vote in the direction that you want to go. Not everything can be achieved instantly.

I wasn't aware that you were so acquainted with my voting patterns.  Would you care to share more information with me about how I vote?

In any case, It isn't necessary to vote for a change in the definition and purpose of prisons, as they are not what you think they are.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-18 12:59:22)

mikkel wrote:

I can assure you that it is most certainly putting words in my mouth, and you really should be able to see that it is.

If you can point out to me where I said that rapists, batterers and murderers simply disagree with a law, then by all means, quote me. Until you produce these quotations, I am afraid that you are putting words in my mouth.

You wrote this:

mikkel wrote:

Okay, so what you're saying is that if you disagree with a law to the point where you disregard it, you shouldn't have the chance to vote for change?

and your response to this:

whittsend wrote:

If you think that rapists, batterers, murderers, and perpetrators of fraud, 'disagree with a law to the point where they disregard it, and should have the chance to vote for change'; I respectfully disagree.

was this:

mikkel wrote:

Prisons are called "correctional facilities". If you don't have faith in their purpose, why are you supporting their existance? Most crimes have victims. I can't see how someone who committed insider trading should be denied the right to vote after serving out his sentence in a correctional facility.

Hence this:

whittsend wrote:

Ah.  So you DO believe that rapists, batterers, muderers and perpetrators of fraud simply disagree with a law to the point where they disregard it,' and should have the chance to vote for change.  Well, as noted above I disagree.

You have also written this:

mikkel wrote:

You can disagree as much as you like with this, but as long as they're correctional facilities, ex-convicts are to be considered rehabilitated by the government as long as they abide by the law like everyone else.

Which indicates that I did not misinterpret you when I wrote the response above.  Sorry, chief.  Your own words fully justify what I said.

mikkel wrote:

No, it is not deniable, and yes, it is a fact. A prison is by definition a correctional facility. It doesn't matter whether or not they adhere to their charter. The definition is key here, not the outcome.

So you are saying that because something has a certain name, the object in question MUST be what the name indicates that it is?  How does one reply to a suggestion so ridiculous...I can think of two obvious ways.  1) Please tell me the location of the stone on which this unbending definition is carved, and; 2) You are a potato...no speaking now, you ARE a Potato!

Edit:  I want to make it clear, that I don't believe prisons are necessarily defined the way you say they are.  Remember, the system is also referred to as the PENAL system....indicating that it's primary function is one of punishment.

mikkel wrote:

Convicts are sent to correctional facilities, and the pre-defined durations of sentencing are measures of how long it will take you to rehabilitate. These are in place to ensure the fair treatment of prisoners, and they are decided by how long it can be expected that the prisoner needs to be imprisoned to fully rehabilitate. These aren't arbitrary definitions, I can assure you.

I'm certain they aren't arbitrary, you probably read them out of a very nice, and very useless book.  Unfortunately, these 'definitions' of yours have nothing to do with reality.  I know some very nice men who work in prisons, and I'm sure you could have some lovely conversations with them about how fairly the prisoners are treated, and how well the rehabilitation is going.

mikkel wrote:

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

You can disagree as much as you like with this, but as long as they're correctional facilities, ex-convicts are to be considered rehabilitated by the government as long as they abide by the law like everyone else.

You can disagree as much as you like, but as long as several states decline to allow felons to vote, it is clear that they were only being punished, and are perceived as irredeemable.

mikkel wrote:

Your argument for denying them the right to vote is that you do not consider them rehabilitated, and while this might be the case, the government does,

Um, no it doesn't.  As I have already stated, in many states felons can't vote.

And the whole point of my argument is that those laws are contradictory to the purpose of the sentence itself.

Have you ever heard of 'recursive thinking'?  You should look it up.  I DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY THAT PURPOSE IS!!  That being the case, I'm not very likely to concede that those laws are contradictory to the purpose prisons, or the senences of those incarcerated therein, serve, now am I?

mikkel wrote:

I think you misunderstood the audience of this part. It was a general comment towards to current legitimacy of the proposed changes to voting rights. I'm sorry if I made it seem like it was directed at you specifically.

Apology accepted.  But I'm not proposing anything, it is already illegal for felons to vote in most states.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-18 13:25:52)