Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

swormer wrote: perdidochas wrote: swormer wrote: perdidochas wrote: I mean we should get rid of motor voter--make people go to another office to register to vote, don't just add it on to the driver's license process.
swormer wrote: I agree, just because you can drive doesn't mean you have much of a brain.

perdidochas wrote: Make voting happen from 9 to 5, etc.
What about work? I don't think many employers would like to let their employees out of work to go vote.

By current law they are required to.


swormer wrote: perdidochas wrote: Heck, put in a voter's test. Ask voters to pass the same test that immigrants have to take in order to get naturalized.
That is a great idea as long as the information is easily accessable.

www.uscis.gov/graphics/exec/natz/natztest.asp

Yes, I've been to this site before but I'm not talking about an internet link. I live in a small town in rural Missouri. I work for the local school district. You would be surprised at the amount of people still without a computer or an internet connection. I even have family members who don't use the internet. Doesn't mean they aren't informed enough to vote. It should start in our education system, something that in the public sector is too overly critized and no solutions are ever given.

You can also get these by requesting them from the INS. My mother became a naturalized citizen about 7 yrs ago. She was not internet savvy at the time (and can only email now), and had the set of questions mailed to her along with the rest of the naturalization information. It's also available in INS offices in most Federal courthouses. Also, most public libraries in the country have internet connections, and the librarian could get a printout of a sample test for a small printing fee.

[swormer]

Quote: You can also get these by requesting them from the INS. My mother became a naturalized citizen about 7 yrs ago. She was not internet savvy at the time (and can only email now), and had the set of questions mailed to her along with the rest of the naturalization information. It's also available in INS offices in most Federal courthouses. Also, most public libraries in the country have internet connections, and the librarian could get a printout of a sample test for a small printing fee.

Ok, you're right, the information is readily available. Not that our discussion is going to make any difference at all, how would you go about getting people to study and take the test when most of the time they don't get off their arses to vote now when it is certainly easy to do. It is obvious that you take politics seriously, as do I, how does anyone get our fellow americans involved?

[LostSoul3412]

swormer wrote: Ok, you're right, the information is readily available. Not that our discussion is going to make any difference at all, how would you go about getting people to study and take the test when most of the time they don't get off their arses to vote now when it is certainly easy to do. It is obvious that you take politics seriously, as do I, how does anyone get our fellow americans involved?

Offer cash prizes if you vote correctly?

[perdidochas]

swormer wrote: Quote: You can also get these by requesting them from the INS. My mother became a naturalized citizen about 7 yrs ago. She was not internet savvy at the time (and can only email now), and had the set of questions mailed to her along with the rest of the naturalization information. It's also available in INS offices in most Federal courthouses. Also, most public libraries in the country have internet connections, and the librarian could get a printout of a sample test for a small printing fee.

Ok, you're right, the information is readily available. Not that our discussion is going to make any difference at all, how would you go about getting people to study and take the test when most of the time they don't get off their arses to vote now when it is certainly easy to do. It is obvious that you take politics seriously, as do I, how does anyone get our fellow americans involved?
I don't care if they are involved or not. If they don't want to vote, so be it. I just want the people that DO vote to be informed. I really don't care if voter turnout is 10% or 99%. I just want the voters who do vote to be informed voters.

[bigstick61]

Personally, I think that the restoration of the republican institution of limited suffrage would be a good thing. It worked well in this country for the few decades it was in place nationwide. The types of people who should not be voting are people who have little stake in society with all that implies, those who covet the property of others because due to their faults, they can't rise out of poverty, those who are criminals or very unvirtuous, those who are stupid, those who are lazy, and those who are apathetic. Limited suffrage was designed to weed out these people while allowing those who don't qualify to have the potential to qualify.

I believe that in order to vote, you must meet the following requirements:
-be a US citizen at least 21 years old, or 17 if in the active duty armed forces
-pass a test more stringent than the one for naturalization, which includes questions on American government, American history, republican principles (why the government works the way it does; American gov is the how), simple economics, basic US citizenship test knowledge, like the Pledge of Allegiance, and current events; the test would only need to be passed once, and would be in English only
-not be a felon, or in jail or on parole for a misdemeanor; felonies committed overseas may be appealed on the grounds of things like an anti-religion law, or something else highly unjust
-own any amount of land; or have at least one doctorate and make enough money to own and maintain land; or be active duty in the US armed forces; or be current or former military and also be a Medal of Honor recipient

I think that would do the job. You'd eliminate most of the people which shouldn't be voting from the electorate. The system is just because it is equal opportunity; any US citizen could potentially qualify to vote, so long as they meet the requirements. The only people who would never meet them are criminals, people who are stupid and/or lazy, people who are apathetic, and the like. Hardly the people who should be voting.

[LostSoul3412]

bigstick61 wrote: I believe that in order to vote, you must meet the following requirements:
-be a US citizen at least 21 years old, or 17 if in the active duty armed forces

Would you also push the draft age back to 21, but still take volunteers at 18?

bigstick61 wrote: -pass a test more stringent than the one for naturalization, which includes questions on American government, American history, republican principles (why the government works the way it does; American gov is the how), simple economics, basic US citizenship test knowledge, like the Pledge of Allegiance, and current events; the test would only need to be passed once, and would be in English only

:tu: , Whatever we expect from immigrants, we should expect the same for naturalized citizens.

bigstick61 wrote: -not be a felon, or in jail or on parole for a misdemeanor; felonies committed overseas may be appealed on the grounds of things like an anti-religion law, or something else highly unjust

:tu:

bigstick61 wrote: -own any amount of land; or have at least one doctorate and make enough money to own and maintain land; or be active duty in the US armed forces; or be current or former military and also be a Medal of Honor recipient

This one gets iffy... Especially the clause of making enough money to "own and maintain land". What constitutes "land"? If I can maintain a little patch of grass, does that allow me to vote? What about apartments, or dorms? What about adults still living at home? What about seniors in senior centers?

[bigstick61]

Probably not on the draft thing. However, I'm not a big supporter of the draft; I feel it's a toll only to be used in a major war if absolutely necessary; however, I am a proponent of a renewed mandatory militia service system in the US, somewhat based upon the one we used to have but ncorporating lessons learned from militias of countries like Switzerland, among others.

Land would constitute the actual ground; you would have to be the person(s) named on the deed. Renting/leasing is not ownership, and neither is living in a place for free. You need to have an actual claim to the property. As for patches of grass, I find such a scenario highly unlikely. Most land for sale is at least a quarter of an acre in size, usually larger. Even if it is not developed, it is still of value and still has the same effect as if it were developed.

[swormer]

Why would have to own land, or have enough money to own land? I am not a land owner but I am also not stupid, lazy, or apethetic. I would also consider myself an informed voter. I agreed with every point you made except that one.

[micfranklin]

LostSoul3412 wrote: micfranklin wrote: People actually don't know the pledge?

Yes. There are people living in the United States of America who wouldn't be able to pass the tests that we give to immigrants to become American citizens. Sometimes I just want to... just want to....

:wtf:

Scream bloody murder?? :!?:

[LostSoul3412]

micfranklin wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: micfranklin wrote: People actually don't know the pledge?

Yes. There are people living in the United States of America who wouldn't be able to pass the tests that we give to immigrants to become American citizens. Sometimes I just want to... just want to....

:wtf:

Scream bloody murder?? :!?:

Something like that... I feel that the only way to truly explain it is through the emote...

[LostSoul3412]

bigstick61 wrote: Probably not on the draft thing. However, I'm not a big supporter of the draft; I feel it's a toll only to be used in a major war if absolutely necessary; however, I am a proponent of a renewed mandatory militia service system in the US, somewhat based upon the one we used to have but ncorporating lessons learned from militias of countries like Switzerland, among others.

Now, the question becomes, if I can't vote for my country, why can I die for my country?

bigstick61 wrote: Land would constitute the actual ground; you would have to be the person(s) named on the deed. Renting/leasing is not ownership, and neither is living in a place for free. You need to have an actual claim to the property. As for patches of grass, I find such a scenario highly unlikely. Most land for sale is at least a quarter of an acre in size, usually larger. Even if it is not developed, it is still of value and still has the same effect as if it were developed.

So, really, only homeowners would be allowed to vote? Unfortunately, I have to disagree here. I don't think that there has to be any land requirement to voting, because you have to consider that pretty much no one in a city actually has their name on the deed to property... Considering that, it would shut down a majority of the voters in the United States.

[pazzo83]

LostSoul3412 wrote: micfranklin wrote: So, any other laws or executive orders out there that damage our rights that we don't know about?

Reinforce the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, eliminate the Elastic Clause, get rid of Presidential power to suspend habeus corpus, overturn McCulloch v Maryland, repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, dismantle the Commerce Clause, and change the Supremacy Clause to eliminate the room for implied preemption, and we'll be sitting pretty.

Amen.

[micfranklin]

pazzo83 wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: micfranklin wrote: So, any other laws or executive orders out there that damage our rights that we don't know about?

Reinforce the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, eliminate the Elastic Clause, get rid of Presidential power to suspend habeus corpus, overturn McCulloch v Maryland, repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, dismantle the Commerce Clause, and change the Supremacy Clause to eliminate the room for implied preemption, and we'll be sitting pretty.

Amen.

Don't think that's going to happen any time soon, but I'll second this anyway.

[pazzo83]

micfranklin wrote: pazzo83 wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: micfranklin wrote: So, any other laws or executive orders out there that damage our rights that we don't know about?

Reinforce the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, eliminate the Elastic Clause, get rid of Presidential power to suspend habeus corpus, overturn McCulloch v Maryland, repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, dismantle the Commerce Clause, and change the Supremacy Clause to eliminate the room for implied preemption, and we'll be sitting pretty.

Amen.

Don't think that's going to happen any time soon, but I'll second this anyway.

One thing the American people (and the gov't) have to realize is that the gov't has no inherent authority, power, or sovereignty. All of that is merely given to the gov't by the people. The 9th and 10th amendments reinforce that principle, which is central to a republican form of gov't. It seems to me that, more and more, the people view the gov't as "giving" them rights, as opposed to the rights existing independent of any state power (i.e. inalienable, God-given, etc). I think that has to be the first thing to change.

[bigstick61]

Whatever is used instead of deeds in most States would work as well. As long as you can prove you own the property. Yes, a majority of the voting populace would likely be cut out. But not a sizeable majority. The bulk of the people that requirement would exclude would be those who should not be voting. There certainly will be exceptions, as not all who are not landowners are stupid, lazy, apathetic, etc. but most of these people have the potential to become landowners or to earn doctorates. The land ownership requirement is not only designed to be equal opportunity and eliminate what most would consider to be "bad voters," but also ensures that the electorate has a greater stake in society, and it also helps to eliminate the type of people who have socialist tendencies, or can be easily manipulated by such people, as they covet the property of others.

Insofar as the draft is concerned, since once you're drafted you'd be considered active duty military, you'd be able to vote under the qualifications I proposed, since the land ownership requirement may be waived for those who hold doctorates and make enough money to own and maintain land in their county, for those in the active armed forces, and those who are recipients of the Medal of Honor.