1 edit
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusFrom what I read, they do not have a right to vote, nor do they in the UK.
Do they allow convicted criminals serving jail sentences in the USA to vote?
However, I believe voting should be a fundamental human right for everyone.
Hypothetical scenario. Someone gets convicted for murder. This person believes they are incorrectly convicted and it has been identified that there is a flaw in the judicial process. Another party has proposals that can potentially fix this flaw which will pardon him/her. He/she should therefore should have the right to vote for this party and improve the judicial process.
Another scenario. A fascist government jails everyone who does not agree with national service. If people in jail cannot vote, the system will be biased towards people who agree with national service, therefore keeping this government in power.
Originally posted by generalissimoOk then, feel free not to answer my question.
the very fact that you're asking me this question somehow communicates the fact that no matter what I say or how I say you'll still retain your beliefs, as they're impervious to debate, so truly there's no point in me answering this question.
1 edit
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusInmates are allowed to vote in Maine and Vermont (where they also run the asylum).
Do they allow convicted criminals serving jail sentences in the USA to vote?
http://www.rrstar.com/multimedia/x635406498/Vermont-Maine-allow-inmates-to-vote
Those are supposedly the only two states that allow inmates to vote. Of course, there's always Illinois, where it's reported that about 2,600 inmates received ballots, while about 2,600 service men and women who are serving overseas did not get their ballots sent out on time. In Illinois, the Democrats who run the show would much rather have prisoners vote than soldiers, because they know how each is likely to cast a ballot.
Democrats will always do whatever they can to suppress the votes of the military.
http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/illinois-soldiers-wait-for
Originally posted by generalissimoMinority rule.
It has been observed that the general population is relatively ignorant when it comes to the political process and public policy and are highly susceptible to the dangers of populism, and the often corroding influence of the media.
In order to prevent the rule of mobs the logical solution to create a system which is comprised of truly competent lead ...[text shortened]... s, ethics, political philosophy, and knowledge of current events.
.....
agree or disagree?
Yup. Sure. What a great idea.
Originally posted by generalissimoWould you support a move to make the right to vote dependent on satisfactorily passing basic IQ, literacy, and numeracy tests?
Majority rule has often led to disaster, the recent US mid-term elections for example reveal the undesirable results of the dangerous combination of populism and universal suffrage.
1 edit
maybe we could put a stipulaton that you need to have worked a set number of days or weeks in the last 5 years...or in amount of taxes paid.
Majority should rule....the judicial branch should be able to sort out any major problem the mobs might vote in using the constitution....
Originally posted by generalissimoUm, Plato beat you to this...centuries ago.
It has been observed that the general population is relatively ignorant when it comes to the political process and public policy and are highly susceptible to the dangers of populism, and the often corroding influence of the media.
In order to prevent the rule of mobs the logical solution to create a system which is comprised of truly competent lead ...[text shortened]... s, ethics, political philosophy, and knowledge of current events.
.....
agree or disagree?
Read, "The Republic" and get back to us.
Originally posted by generalissimoIsn't that why the United States, and indeed, most other countries, have a constitution - to protect the country from the worst consequences of the dangerous combination of populism and universal suffrage?
Majority rule has often led to disaster, the recent US mid-term elections for example reveal the undesirable results of the dangerous combination of populism and universal suffrage.
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusThe fairest way would be those that pay for guvamint can vote for guvamint, your vote is weighted by the amount of tax you pay. So cancel out all the gummint bureaurats, sure they might appear to pay tax but they are being paid from tax dollars in the first place. This would be a great way of easing towards a minimum IQ requirement. Naturally folk that pay a lot of tax are going to vote for less taxes so the sytem is self correcting. They vote to pay less tax but their vote loses some of it's effect next election.
Would you support a move to make the right to vote dependent on satisfactorily passing basic IQ, literacy, and numeracy tests?
Originally posted by generalissimoWadda larf, derrrrrmocracy is ok if the majority agree with you innit.
Majority rule has often led to disaster, the recent US mid-term elections for example reveal the undesirable results of the dangerous combination of populism and universal suffrage.
The power of the mob needs to be limited with a binding constitution so about all they can vote on is what colour to paint the white house this term.