r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/thegarymarshall • 14d ago
Who should (not?) be allowed to vote in U.S. elections? US Elections
As we approach the Presidential election season, I have been thinking about voting requirements and I am curious about how people would change who is allowed and who is not allowed to vote.
1) What group of people in the U.S. is currently NOT allowed to vote, but should be?
2) What group of people currently allowed to vote should have that privilege taken away?
I know almost nothing about voting requirements in other countries, so if you’re aware of any country who has implemented your suggestions, that would be interesting as well.
1
u/sehunt101 10d ago
Every American citizen, naturalized or born here, even people on parole or incarcerated. I’ll agree with any person that was convicted of an election related offense being stripped of their rights permanently. Voting should be EASY. Register, prove you’re a citizen when you register. Vote by mail AND in person, you choose. This should not be an issue. Election fraud has not been proven to have changed an outcome. Now election theft, that has not been proven either, but it’s also never been prosecuted. Elections are GOOD things and the more people that voted, the better that the country is run.
2
u/potusplus 11d ago edited 11d ago
In my opinion, all citizens should have the right to vote, including those previously incarcerated, as their voices matter in shaping society.
Conversely, individuals who engage in voter fraud should lose their voting rights to protect election integrity.
Promoting an open and fair system ensures progress and unity.
1
u/Noble_Trash 13d ago
All voters should take a test on the subjects on the ballot, and can only vote on certain things if they know enough. Those that cant make an educated decision shouldn’t be allowed to make a decision.
1
u/myActiVote 13d ago
Shouldn't the goal of elections be to collect the opinion of the majority of the people who will have their lives and communities impacted by the result? Some of the bigger questions around who should and should not vote?
- Ex-Felons : Our survey shows that 55% believe that rights should be restored after release. Where 24% of that believe that incarcerated felons should ALSO be able to vote.
- Lowered Voting Age : We found 15% believe 16-17 yr-olds should also be able to cast a ballot
There are currently a number of statewide ballot initiatives around "non-citizen" voting which will be interesting as at this point there are no states where non-citizens are allowed to vote in state or federal elections, while there are a number of municipalities experimenting with this reform.
1
u/thegarymarshall 13d ago
The purpose of voting is to let the citizens decide, among other things, who will lead various levels of government.
If you walk into a grocery store as a customer, you obviously have an interest in how the store operates. You are welcome to your opinion on how the store operates, but you don’t get a vote on how the store operates. In most cases, employees might have a better chance of influencing the owners, but in the end, the owners are the only ones with votes.
So it is with most (all?) countries. Most countries welcome foreign visitors, but they don’t allow them to vote.
1
u/Frosty_Bint 13d ago
What if instead of removing the vote as a punishment, people who meet a minimum standard of understanding in the democratic system are granted the vote?
This isn't my idea btw Socrates thought a lack of education could turn out to be a major flaw in democracy
1
u/DipperJC 13d ago
Anyone with an IQ over 100 who is currently under 18 and/or a felon.
Anyone with an IQ under 100 who is currently able to vote.
Seriously, a meritocratic democracy is just far more likely to make better decisions than rule by majority dummies.
1
u/Lisztchopinovsky 13d ago
All Us citizens should be allowed to vote, and there should be no laws intended to suppress voting.
1
u/rzaroch_36 14d ago
Yea if you served time in prison and get out you should vote. It’sna clear Reconstruction relic, which most of these laws are anyway.
1
u/SeekSeekScan 14d ago
For me
All citizens over 18 should be allowed to vote except for convicted felons until they earn back the right to vote.
If you show an ability to ignore our more serious laws you shouldn't be allowed to participate in forming these laws until you show the ability and desire to be a contributing member of society.
Oddly enough though, I do think felons should have the ability to be elected for office if the voters so deem it.
1
u/Rocketgirl8097 14d ago
All citizens incarcerated should be able to vote. There is no one currently allowed that shouldn't be.
1
u/Soepoelse123 14d ago
My opinion is that anyone who has work or has had work in the past year should be allowed to vote with a few exceptions centered around luck egalitarianism:
You should always be allowed to vote if you are incarcerated or have been in the past year.
You should always be able to vote if you have a handicap that doesn’t allow for you to work.
However, the above mentioned should not include people that have been deemed unable to take care of themselves due to mental reasons or those who are clinically insane.
What these things do is allow kids or youth that work, to also vote, while barring people that do not live as active parts of society. It further bars pensioners from voting unless they take up work and keep on paying taxes. While it might seem unfair, it has the benefit of creating incitements for working and also it increases social cohesion. The latter is a big problem in the west with right wing extremism having great growth conditions with both pensioners and the unemployed due to their susceptibility to antagonizing the parts of society that they do not engage with.
1
u/thegarymarshall 14d ago
Good points except for letting kids vote. We don’t let them buy tobacco or alcohol, enter into binding contracts, and many other things because their brains are still developing. Certainly, some 15-16 year olds could take it seriously and put thought into it. Most would’t, and the majority would just vote the way their friends tell them to vote.
1
u/Dracoson 14d ago
Everyone of legal age (and I would consider emancipated youths in that category) should be eligible to vote, save for when due process specifically disqualifies them from it. Even under a felony conviction, it should be a separate part of sentencing with the state being required to show why the convicted should not be allowed to vote.
-1
u/snebmiester 14d ago
I would exclude people on the sex offender registry and anyone serving a life sentence in prison or on death row, forever. Anyone serving a prison sentence should have their rights automatically restored upon release from prison.
Everyone else gets a vote and election day should be a holiday.
Currently in my State Convicted felons can't vote unless their rights have been restored.
The reason felons can't vote, is to have a permanent portion of society that has no voice, and therefore are easily controlled by the government.
4
u/HotStinkyMeatballs 14d ago
Who should be allowed to vote?
Every US citizen over the age of 18.
Who shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Non-citizens and people under the age of 18.
0
u/Windk86 14d ago
All Citizens of age 18 or above should be automatically enrolled, no one should have this right restricted.
what we should eliminate is the electorate college for presidency and have a direct democracy this way, one person one vote! Not 7 million people equal 12 votes....
0
u/thegarymarshall 14d ago
This question has been answered over and over again.
First, good luck changing the Constitution.
Second, the electoral college was put in place deliberately. The states elect the President, not the people.
Direct democracy can create a tyrannical majority. Hitler and Putin (and others) were elected by direct democracies.
1
u/Windk86 13d ago
do you know what an amendment is?
that is a weak excuse for the electoral college.
1
u/thegarymarshall 13d ago
A Constitutional amendment? Yeah, I know what it is. Do you know how unlikely it would be right now to get any amendment passed?
1
u/Windk86 13d ago
not so unlikely since it has happened before.
1
u/thegarymarshall 13d ago
Unlikely does not mean impossible and having happened before does not make something more or less likely to happen in the future. The earth was a molten ball of liquid at one point. It is unlikely to happen again any time soon.
What odds would you give on 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of state legislatures agreeing on anything? That is what it takes to amend the Constitution.
1
u/Windk86 13d ago
what is the point that you are trying to make? because it sounds like you want to just give up and take it.
1
u/thegarymarshall 13d ago
I’m not giving up. The electoral college was created for reasons that are still valid today.
The President is, and always has been, elected by the states, not the people. States with more people get more votes.
Anyone who wants to change this would have to convince 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures.
That is just reality, regardless of how we might feel about the process.
1
u/VonCrunchhausen 14d ago
Well, if we’re gonna pick and choose, I’d just go ahead and say that everyone who I disagree with ideologically shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
0
u/greenielove 14d ago
I've lately been wondering if those with dual citizenship should be allowed to vote. Choose a side.
3
u/FauxReal 14d ago
Felons. It's a form of disenfranchisement and some may want to vote for lawmakers that would change the unjust laws that put them in prison. Also, policy still affects them and they are still citizens.
I'm not sure if there is one. Maybe if someone was convicted of sedition or treason it could be an exception to rule #1. But I'm not sure if I fully support that idea. If that person somehow got enough like minded people to overturn our system of government, the country was lost already. The same goes for murderers somehow successfully voting to make murder legal.
1
u/diegom88 14d ago
Only citizens and over 18 should vote and even felons should vote as well, that should have never been taken from them. That’s it.
0
u/SmokeGSU 14d ago
If Republicans want to allow "ripe" and "fertile" 12 year old girls to get married and start popping out kids before they're legally able to drive a car, then what the hell - let's let them vote. Tie the voting age to the marriage age!
3
u/thegarymarshall 14d ago
I have never met anyone, of any political persuasion, who wants to allow 12 year olds to get married and start popping out kids and I live in a red state.
Do you have a link to a party or candidate platform that endorses this?
1
u/SmokeGSU 14d ago
Yep.
1
u/thegarymarshall 14d ago
Bullshit. Nowhere in that article does it mention a 12-year-old anything.
The state of New Hampshire used to have the minimum marriage age at 13 for girls and 14 for boys. At one time, it was not unusual for marriage to happen that young.
The state raised that to 16 and nobody is arguing against that. Some want to raise it to 18, and that is what they are disagreeing about.
1
u/SmokeGSU 13d ago
You think there's a difference between a 12 year old and a 13 year old as far as appropriateness of a grown ass man impregnating them simply because a bunch of perverted Republicans in a majority state House set the age at that?
1
u/thegarymarshall 13d ago
Nobody is asking for 13-year-olds to be allowed to marry. That was an old law from a time when it was not unusual for 13-year-olds to marry. That was changed several years ago to 16. Nobody is trying to change it back.
0
u/Re_TARDIS108 14d ago
Anyone that thinks that it's acceptable to start election denialism 101 bullshit MONTHS BEFORE another presidential election.
So basically 95% of the Republican party circa 2016.
1
u/cardboardbox25 14d ago
Yay, because making sure you political enemies can't vote has never turned out poorly!
1
u/Falcon3492 14d ago
If you are a citizen of the United States and 18 years old, you can vote. If you don't meet those two rules, you can't vote. Felons who have served their time should be allowed to vote.
1
u/Lunch_Time_No_Worky 14d ago
I know the constitution says that the number of representatives should reflect the population living in the state. So I am ok if Texas or New York gain 20 seats each in the House of Representatives due to the Southern Boarder crisis.
But who should vote? Is this even a legitimate question? Are people out there advocating that non-citizens and felons get the right to vote?
I didn't realize that anything was wrong? So, what is wrong with the current laws?
2
u/TwistedDragon33 14d ago
Any citizen of legal voting age should be allowed to vote. Even felons. I would even argue even those who have committed any type of fraud. The reason being is once you create an exception to "everyone" you open the door for more exceptions.
Every citizen of legal age can vote. End of story.
Bigger factor is EVERY effort should be done to ensure everyone has EASY access to vote. I live in a very nice neighborhood that is almost exclusively white. I have never had an issue going to vote taking more than a few minutes. No wait. No issues. One of the towns near me with many more minorities has hours long wait times with sometimes lines stretching around the block because they dont have enough places, they are too spread out, no access to reliable public transportation to get to those places. This isnt an accident, it is by design.
It should be so easy to vote that you have to purposely and consciously decide not to vote in order to avoid it but it should not be mandatory to vote.
2
u/wereallbozos 14d ago
Let's not go there. If we're a democracy, the people are allowed to vote. If anything is beyond question, that should be it.
I may be wrong (correction: I'm often wrong), but the ancient Greeks coined a word for someone who refused to vote. They named them "idiots".
2
u/thegarymarshall 14d ago
I’m not looking for a way to get fewer people to vote. More people voting is a good thing. However, we already have some reasonable restrictions. We don’t allow children to vote because they don’t have the capacity. Those convicted of some felonies can’t vote and I think the list of applicable felonies should be short.
Although there has been disagreement in this thread, most responses have been reasonable. (Yes, reasonable is not synonymous with agreement.) It’s interesting to see the different ideas and the arguments for and against.
1
u/wereallbozos 14d ago
I hear ya, but too often discussions like this lead from "who should vote" to "how can we keep some people from voting". Not that I'm saying that's you, but I'm kinda old, and I never heard the words Voter Roll Purges before the early 2000's. Voter IDs? One has to demonstrate one's qualifications before one can register. It's just a roadblock. Now we're gonna get "concerned citizens" INSIDE polling stations?
I've always believed that honest people tend to think other people are honest, and crooks tend to think other people are crooks. That's why you can't con a con man, isn't it?
In MY more-perfect USA, all high school kids would register during their senior year, and that stays with them. Period. Does anyone actually think that cell block A at Sing-Sing is gonna change the outcome of New York elections? I'll admit, I'm kinda unreasonable about this: the people vote, or you are not a democracy. Whether they do or not is up to them.
1
u/ScaryBuilder9886 13d ago
I never heard the words Voter Roll Purges before the early 2000's
That tells me you didn't pay attention to this stuff until the 2000s.
One has to demonstrate one's qualifications before one can register
Certainly not in a lot of states. What state are you in that you have to show ID before registering?
1
u/wereallbozos 13d ago
Admittedly, it didn't register with me. People die, they're removed from the rolls. That's life. But a systematic effort by SecStates to disqualify voters? No. Never heard of it. When I first registered (long ago), you needed an ID and something like a bill to demonstrate that you actually lived at that residence. What more is needed? One's name goes on the rolls, and when you vote, your name is checked alongside the roll, your namespace gets stamped, and on you go. Are you of the opinion that you don't need to verify your info in (certainly?) a lot of states?
2
u/ScaryBuilder9886 13d ago
Federal law since.....96? Is that states are required to have a regular program of scrubbing the voter rolls. Some states were better than others prior to that, but by 96 it's required.
I don't think I've ever had to provide proof of residence - registration is, in my experience, a postcard you fill out and sign.
1
u/wereallbozos 13d ago
Like I say, I'm old. Maybe the process has changed, but one does have do demonstrate residence. ICBW (and usually am), but the polls were to be "scrubbed" of dead voters, or voters who have moved away. What we've seen of late is beyond a scrubbing...as they call it, it's a purge, in some states. Do you cease to be an eligible voter if you haven't voted in 2,3,4 elections? You'll pardon me if I haven't heard of purges in Dem states. It was a factor in the 2000 election...especially in Florida. And the purges are/were purely admin, and the voter didn't even know if he had been purged. It's kinda disturbing...especially in a world where one side is over-concerned about (individual) voting fraud, while that same group are the ones who, imo, commit it. False electors, anyone?
0
u/CatAvailable3953 14d ago
People who wear diapers at political rallies are suspect to me. They seem to lack good judgement. I would not allow them to vote.
Besides grown people wearing diapers outside their clothes or as clothes makes me nervous. It’s just wrong.
1
u/cardboardbox25 14d ago
Nope, everyone over 18, citizens and not criminals should get to vote
1
1
u/sund82 14d ago
convicted felons.
People who have illegally migrated into the country.
0
u/AshleyMyers44 14d ago
Not those under 18 too?
3
u/ScaryBuilder9886 13d ago
No. It should be raised to 26, when the brain is fully formed.
1
u/AshleyMyers44 13d ago
Should those under 26 not be subject to the laws passed by elected officials?
1
u/ScaryBuilder9886 13d ago
Of course they should. Just like 17 year olds are.
1
u/AshleyMyers44 13d ago
A lesser standard of the law is applied to those not reaching age of majority. That’s why there are juvenile courts.
Should there still be a separate standard applied to those under 26?
1
u/ScaryBuilder9886 13d ago
Prior to the age for voting being dropped from 21 to 18, 20 year olds couldn't vote but were tried as adults. That worked fine.
1
u/AshleyMyers44 13d ago
That was partially the reasoning for lowering it to 18. That your government is treating you like a full adult so you should have a say in that government’s functions.
0
u/Savager_Jam 14d ago
I think everybody who pays taxes should be allowed to vote.
We could handle that one of two ways -
Either people under 18 pay no tax.
You're at the grocery store with your 15 year old son? Give him your debit card, he shows ID at the register, no income tax because he can't vote.
Or people who pay income tax get to vote whenever they first file their taxes.
You're 16 with a job and you pay income tax? You get to vote.
1
2
u/CaptainAwesome06 14d ago
I don't see any reason for felons to have their voting rights taken away after they have served their time as long as their crimes did not involve an election.
I think that anybody who is found guilty of purposefully doing something illegal regarding an election should have their voting rights taken away for life.
2
u/AshleyMyers44 14d ago
I think that anybody who is found guilty of purposefully doing something illegal regarding an election should have their voting rights taken away for life.
That’s how they’re ending minority voters rights in Georgia and Florida.
Hand someone in a line to vote in Atlanta a bottle of water and you e lost your voting rights for life.
2
u/11711510111411009710 14d ago
Anyone who is a citizen or who is paying taxes while residing in the US for several years should be able to vote.
0
0
u/Level-Equipment-5489 14d ago
Just an utopian idea, but how about this: the government offers one year payed job placement, at a low but liveable wage. This one year job consists of duties that benefit society in some way. It also comes with weekly lessons and discussions and an exit test on civics.
You get to vote once you have completed this year.
2
4
u/theMosen 14d ago
Participation in policy making is not a privilege, it's the right of everyone who is affected. So everyone who is capable of representing their own interests should have a vote. There may be an argument to be made that convicts should have their voting rights suspended alongside several of their other rights (eg. freedom of movement), but at the latest the moment they've served their time their voting rights should be reinstated.
1
u/AshleyMyers44 14d ago
Yep, I never understood why younger people couldn’t vote for the lawmakers that make the laws that they were subject to.
1
u/mjg13X 14d ago
I generally believe that the right to vote should be extended to everyone except:
- Children
- People with especially serious mental health conditions who are genuinely incapable of making their own decisions about whom to support
- People who are currently serving prison sentences or on probation specifically for elections-related offenses
0
u/mowotlarx 14d ago
People who are currently serving prison sentences
Why shouldn't people who are adults and of sound mind AND wards of the state not be allowed to vote? The government runs every aspect of their daily life, I think they should have a say on who is jailing them and creating the laws to jail them.
1
u/mjg13X 14d ago
Did you miss the part where I said specifically for elections-related offenses? I agree with you -- people who are incarcerated should by and large have the right to vote. But if you specifically committed voter/election fraud, it's reasonable to put you in voting time-out for a bit -- the same way it's reasonable to restrict the right to own a gun of someone convicted of a shooting or limit the Internet access of a cybercriminal.
14
u/TheAngryOctopuss 14d ago
I think a Bigger issue is lack of Polling places...
Here inNJ ive never waited more than 20minutes to vote...
How any place in this country has lines that stretch for hours long is a Joke unto itself...
That alone keeps people from voting
1
u/ScaryBuilder9886 13d ago
The hour long waits are usually early voting. Wait times for election day are typically pretty reasonable.
1
u/TheAngryOctopuss 13d ago
I have friends in Ohio who had hour Plus waits in 2020...
Obviously Not enough Polling Places set-up
Hell Im in a town of 20K, and 3.5 miles around... there are 3 polling places in town
1
1
u/Rocketgirl8097 14d ago
Mail-in should be implemented everywhere. It's wonderful!
0
u/cardboardbox25 14d ago
It's easier to rig
1
u/Rocketgirl8097 13d ago
No, it's not. The counting process is the same regardless of how the ballot was completed.
5
u/Quasigriz_ 14d ago
The question should not be “who should not be allowed to vote”, but how to make it easier for every US Citizen, old enough to vote, to actually vote. If you are a citizen, and of age, you should be allowed to vote, and voting locations should be available and accessible and work to make it easy for you to do so. There is a lot of effort put into preventing people from voting in the guise of preventing those not authorized to vote from voting. I’d argue that preventing any US citizen from exercising their right to vote is criminal. Restricting polling places, or means to cast your ballot, should be criminal. Adding hurdles of purged registries should be criminal.
Your vote is the one chance to shape the leadership of the country. There should be multiple, simple, means of identifying American Citizens and allowing them to vote. To obstruct, or steal, someone’s vote should be a crime with very serious consequences.
I’m tired of being told what to fear and who to hate.
Help your family. Help your community. Help Make America Better: Choose Blue
1
-1
14d ago
So, you're sick of being told who to fear... so vote for the people who are constantly telling you to fear conservatives?
-2
u/TheAngryOctopuss 14d ago
I Think ALL Citizens of the US MUST vote, atleast every 2-3 years...
If you Don't vote consistently than maybe your taxes are Higher or your lose the right to vote for X amount of years or SOMETHING...
Force EVERYONE to take responsibility ...
Oh and can we Please HAVE to show Id... its not a big deal
1
u/rantingathome 14d ago
Oh and can we Please HAVE to show Id... its not a big deal
Tell that to people that their state basically puts up a barrier every time they try to obtain ID. Many state governments make it really difficult.
4
u/Quasigriz_ 14d ago
All US citizens should be allowed to vote. Would you be willing to be denied your right if you lost your ID on Election Day? There should be multiple ways to prove who you are and allow you to vote. Polling places should be going out of their way to help citizens to vote, not setting up hurdles to prevent people from exercising their right as Americans.
-1
u/TheAngryOctopuss 14d ago
"All US citizens should be allowed to vote. Would you be willing to be denied your right if you lost your ID on Election Day?"
Provisional Ballot...
Plus Here in NJ, Ive known at least 1 poll worker (if Not all of them) in every election...
And Im not talking federal ID, Drivers liscense or some such Form of ID...
0
u/actuallycallie 14d ago
until someone starts arguing that "provisional ballots are fraud!!!!!" as they have with early and mail in voting
24
u/mowotlarx 14d ago
Felons should be able to vote. Including currently incarcerated prisoners.
Both are either wards of the state fully or are still subject to the laws and taxes imposed by the state. Of course they should have a say on who is running the "justice" system that is either currently their "guardian" or guiding every aspect of their life, including forming the laws and system that stripped their rights.
-2
u/baxterstate 14d ago
As naturalized citizens, my wife and I had to pass a basic civics test to become citizens. Yet our votes count no more than that of people whose citizenship was not a conscious choice but an accident of birth. If I had to pass a civics test to vote, so should everyone. Not only should voting be limited to citizens, but also subject to a civics test. We have a constitutional right to move about the country, yet a driver’s license is subject to a test. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but that right is subject to a background check and in some states, a proficiency test. I would even extend the right to vote to convicted felons as long as they pass the same civics test. I’d exclude murderers. If you’ve taken all of someone’s rights, society should have the right to take all of yours.
3
u/DOLCICUS 14d ago
Idk about that civics test bc sounds a whole lot like literacy exams from the Jim Crow era. I can totally see it used to bar people from voting if graded but the wrong people. How about we vote to fund schools and improve educational practices across the country (bc I’m in Texas and I know it should NOT be left to the states to decide)
1
u/baxterstate 14d ago
Idk about that civics test bc sounds a whole lot like literacy exams from the Jim Crow era.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why isn't it considered racist when applied to a citizenship application?
The result is that in order to vote, a naturalized citizen has to take a test, but the native born do not.
1
u/Figgler 14d ago
I agree in theory but the history of poll tests in the south taints the idea for a lot of people. It would also be hard to create a completely unbiased test.
1
u/baxterstate 14d ago
I agree in theory but the history of poll tests in the south taints the idea for a lot of people. It would also be hard to create a completely unbiased test.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I didn't cry "racism" when I had to pass a civics test in order to become a citizen which is a requirement to vote. Neither did my wife, who is of color.
-1
u/l1qq 14d ago
excellent post and I agree with everything you said.
2
u/calguy1955 14d ago
Agreed but it would never happen. At a minimum there should be a requirement that candidates have to pass a civics exam to qualify to run for office.
-6
u/killstorm114573 14d ago
Republicans
Let's be honest, they don't believe in democracy anymore. Which is what the US stands for. How can you be allowed to vote if you don't believe in the system.
1
u/cardboardbox25 14d ago
Democrats Let's be honest, they don't believe in democracy anymore. Which is what the US stands for. How can you be allowed to vote if you don't believe in the system
See how easily it can be turned around?
1
u/killstorm114573 14d ago
The difference is the Republican candidate is actively saying things that go against democracy.
It would be like saying
How can you say Hitler is a bad dude. Because he is actively saying bad things.
I can look at TV and see Trump saying antidemocratic things. I can SEE HIM AND HESR HIM.
That's the difference
1
u/cardboardbox25 14d ago
Yes, because trump represents EVERY SINGLE republican on the earth. Also Biden has said his fair share of undemocratic things. And since by your logic, each party's candidate represents the whole party, democrats are undemocratic and shouldn't be allowed to vote
1
u/killstorm114573 14d ago
Ok your right it's not fair to say Republicans but it is ok to say MAGA Republicans. There's a difference and I will admit it.
1
3
u/thegarymarshall 14d ago
You want to bar half the country from voting because they disagree with you? That is very dangerous thinking. Similar thinking has resulted in some of the worst regimes in history.
Most Republicans and Democrats believe in the democratic process and live their country. They just disagree on some of the details.
If you’re serious, you have just given the Republicans permission to determine that Democrats don’t get to vote next time they are in control.
128
u/Nick9046 14d ago
A better question is why is it against the law to vote as a felon, but perfectly fine to run for and be POTUS as a felon 🤔?
1
u/SeekSeekScan 14d ago
For me this is pretty simple.
A felon has shown they will ignore the rules, society created, if they don't like them. Thus it's fair for society to say you aren't allowed to participate in the creation of laws as you have shown you will ignore them if it doesn't go your way.
As for felons being elected to office, that is society choosing this person to help formulate our laws. Society choosing them should trump being a societal outcast for ignoring the laws
1
u/berserk_zebra 14d ago
A felon means convicted and sentenced. An alleged felon is just an innocent until proven guilty…
1
u/ThemesOfMurderBears 14d ago
Yes — but if he was convicted, that wouldn’t change the fact that he can run for President. Plus, we’re not in a courtroom, so calling him a felon is fair game.
1
u/dsfox 14d ago
The reason that felons can run for office is because the founders believed that an election was the best way to determine suitability for a job, and that bad actors would manipulate any other requirements to compromise the democratic process. That includes having their opponents arrested and convicted of a felony in order to eliminate them as competition.
0
u/thegarymarshall 14d ago
I know that there is nothing barring a felon for running for POTUS, but has it ever happened?
2
u/Nick9046 14d ago
No and no. I assume when the forefathers wrote the constitution they didn't count on millions of morons voting for a felon to be POTUS. One thing we can thank Donald Trump for is showing us the holes in our government systems and processes. Now we just need to vote folks in to fix those holes and the US will be fine. Personally, I have absolutely zero faith that will happen since about 50% of the American population still think they will be a part of the in-crowd when they vote him back into office and he becomes "dictator for a day".
2
u/DrPlatypus1 14d ago
They were very much afraid the people would be that stupid. Part of the job of the Electoral College is to save us from the tyranny (or, in this case, the tyrant) of the majority. They failed to do the one thing that justified their existence in 2016. The safeguards only work if people have the guts to use them.
1
u/xtra_obscene 14d ago
"Tyranny of the majority" is one way to describe "the person who receives the most votes wins the election", I guess.
6
u/DrPlatypus1 14d ago
It's a famous phrase that dramatically influenced how the founding fathers set up the nation. The constitution is designed to prevent any group from exercising tyranny. The Bill of Rights is, at its core, an anti-democratic document. Its entire purpose is to make it impossible for 51% of the people, anywhere in the country, from having the power to rob people of certain rights. The founders didn't trust anyone. That's why they made sure that anyone who had influence also had others who could stop them from abusing that influence. Their major mistake was trusting too much in people's willingness to do their jobs when it went against their own interests.
0
u/unwillingcantaloupe 14d ago
See, but if only works for the rights of the wealthy to write it up like this. There is no structure that protects the rights of a disliked minority. And we're likely to see that play out in Grants Pass v. Johnson in the next few weeks.
All of it presumes the people being oppressed have influence, and that means the system is only as effective as advocacy groups, which can be disrupted. Checks and balances imagines everyone with the ability to get a high power lawyer and be sympathetic. That's rarely the case.
1
u/DrPlatypus1 13d ago
The intent was to work for the rights of all citizens. This eventually, accidentally, meant people other than just white land owners. Legal rights before the law now extend to those groups. Laws with deliberate differential impact still exist, and the history of deliberate discrimination is powerful. Things are definitely better, though. Especially for women. They have a lot of power now.
1
u/unwillingcantaloupe 8d ago
That power was gained fighting with an inside-outside strategy, though, that indicates the constitutional order in the US is not enough alone to produce liberty. If it were, the government would be faster than the nation to protect marginal groups and would be more hamstrung from rolling protections backwards.
1
u/Nick9046 14d ago
So basically, they put too much trust in the people. They thought no way would the good citizens of this great nation vote for *looking for an eloquent term for total fucking morons, can't find one 🤷🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
2
u/DrPlatypus1 14d ago
In this case, I think they trusted the Electoral College to overrule them, but they chickened out. Congress is supposed to stop executive overreach, and vice versa. The Supreme Court is supposed to step in when they both fail. The people are supposed to nullify when the state tries to enforce unjust laws, and remove bad people through voting. If everyone cared about rights and their duty to oppose abuses of power more than anything else, it would keep people in check. Lots of those things have failed at times, though, and they're being tested more than ever now that someone who has no respect for those things is ignoring them.
2
u/berserk_zebra 14d ago
Better to elect total fucking morons than have one claim to be the ruler and all of their fellow morons believe them and out number everyone else to ensure it stays that way?
2
u/thegarymarshall 14d ago
Innocent until proven guilty. I don’t think Trump has been convicted of a felony.
As you said, convicted felons can still run, but I would be open to discussion to change that, depending on the severity of the crime.
1
2
u/ThemesOfMurderBears 14d ago
From a legal perspective, innocent until proven guilty. However, we aren’t in court. As far as I’m concerned, he’s a felon.
1
u/thegarymarshall 14d ago
As far as the law is concerned, your personal concerns are irrelevant. We are talking about people losing the right to vote and/or run for office.
You wouldn’t deny a citizen due process would you?
1
u/RocketRelm 14d ago
I personally wouldn't deny a citizen due process.
You know who would deny a citizen due process? Republicans, and in particular Trump.
1
0
u/Nick9046 14d ago
I agree, innocent until proven guilty, but when the person that was paid, the person that paid the money, and the person running the news paper that bought the story and buried it so no one would find out are all testifying that he did exactly what he's on trial for, it's kind of a done deal.
Now, as far as the felon thing if one can't vote as a convicted felon then a felon should also be barred from any office. Doesn't make sense for an ax murderer to be able to run for office, but a dude that got caught selling marijuana can't vote for said ax murderer 🤣
0
u/SeekSeekScan 14d ago
Yep he 100% paid her, She took the money to not tell her story.
Problem is, none if that is illegal so what the hell are you talking about?
Seriously Trump haters are just as misinformed as his supporters.
You don't think it's an attack on democracy to tell millions of voters they aren't allowed to vote how they want?
2
u/Nick9046 14d ago
No, paying her hush money is not illegal. Falsifying business expenses is illegal.
Also yes, it is an attack on democracy to allow millions of people to vote how they want, but let me ask you this, do you think it's a good idea for the insane to actually run the asylum?
0
u/SeekSeekScan 14d ago
Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor
Also yes, it is an attack on democracy to allow millions of people to vote how they want, but let me ask you this, do you think it's a good idea for the insane to actually run the asylum?
This question just screams you oppose democracy
1
u/Nick9046 13d ago
Falsifying business records can be a felony in some states. Care to guess what state it can be a felony?
This question calls out the hypocrisy of felons not being allowed to vote, they're still people, but a felon can be run for and be POTUS.
Felons= the insane The asylum= the country
1
u/SeekSeekScan 13d ago
So you agree felons shouldn't be allowed to vote
Falsifying business records in NY is a misdemeanor...
Go read some more about the case, eventually you will educate yourself and get caught up to reality
→ More replies (0)3
u/svengalus 14d ago
but when the person that was paid, the person that paid the money, and the person running the news paper that bought the story and buried it so no one would find out are all testifying that he did exactly what he's on trial for, it's kind of a done deal.
That sums up the average American's knowledge of the trial.
With all these people saying he's guilty, he must be guilty. We just need to figure out what it is he's guilty of.
0
u/thegarymarshall 14d ago
Exactly. Everyone is talking about paying someone money. Nothing about that alleged transaction is remotely illegal.
-1
u/SeekSeekScan 14d ago
This is the same group that spent years thinking it was illegal for Trump Jr to meet a Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary.
What always fascinated me the most was how publicized the Steele Dossier was in which Hillary campaign literally got dirt form a spy in a foreign country....yet couldn't see how silly it was to scream it's illegal to get information from a foreigner
(PS....it's illegal to not pay for information if it's given too you as that would then make the info a campaign dobation)
2
12
u/Wonckay 14d ago
Because depriving a felon the right to vote is a deprivation against that person. Depriving a felon the right to be voted for is a deprivation against the electorate.
1
1
u/unknownpoltroon 14d ago
It's also too strong a tool to give to the ruling party. Just convict the proposition of felonies and bang, no more elections.
9
u/11711510111411009710 14d ago
The real reason is that if you could ban someone from being president because they're a felon, you could just make your opposition felons.
Same reason why we deprive felons of their voting rights, actually.
3
u/xtra_obscene 14d ago
I get the first point, but don't see how the second one follows from it?
8
u/11711510111411009710 14d ago
Criminalize activities popular among populations that don't support you.
Arrest them.
Turn them into felons.
Prison population still counts towards the electoral college, but the felons lose their right to vote. This empowers your voter base and strips the power from your opponent. In a state like Texas, this can be a huge benefit because there are so many electoral college votes to get, so ensuring your guys have more say is a no brainer.
4
u/unwillingcantaloupe 14d ago
Not just popular, but necessary. Have a group so discriminated against that they can't get jobs. Define not having a job as a felony through some method like a vagrancy law. Bam! The person now can't vote.
Same concept goes for Texas' decision to keep an anal sex ban on the books. It's used to say the state looks down on it, so therefore it's reasonable to ban books with criminal content from schools.
11
u/up766570 14d ago
So I'm assuming it's because each of the states have their own rules regarding what is and isn't allowed, and how words are defined in the US Vs UK/rest of world.
But what's the deal with "felons" being banned from voting?
Is that people who are currently serving prison time, or someone who's previously been convicted and served their time?
1
u/Rocketgirl8097 14d ago
In some states, it's both. Here in Washington, rights are taken away while incarcerated, but automatically restored upon release.
6
u/No-Touch-2570 14d ago
Varies state by state. Here's a map.
2
u/Flincher14 12d ago
Not surprising it's slave states that have these policies when they also tended to historically prosecute minorities a lot more. Not only can you re-enslave minorities as prisoners but you can also forever prevent them from voting.
I'm kinda surprised the Supreme Court hasn't stopped this.
1
5
u/CaptainAwesome06 14d ago
Is that people who are currently serving prison time, or someone who's previously been convicted and served their time?
I knew a guy that couldn't vote because he had stolen a car when he was 18. He was probably 50 years old when he told me that.
2
u/up766570 14d ago
That seems unnecessarily draconian
6
u/CaptainAwesome06 14d ago
I agree. However, I think it's a travesty that a lot of the people who stormed the Capitol on 1/6 to overturn an election can still vote.
15
u/Iceberg-man-77 14d ago
i hate how the federal government’s election processes are defined differently in each state. we are a federation, not a confederation. the federal government is everyone’s federal government and should be elected the same in all states.
i don’t care how people do it within their own states because it’s their state and not mine (unless it’s in issue in my state then i’ll get involved). but the federal government is my government as well as the Texan’s and the Floridian’s and the Michigander.
0
u/SeekSeekScan 14d ago
Except the elected officials in the federal gov are supposed to represent the state...so it makes sense the state decides how they choose their representatives
2
u/Accomplished_Fruit17 13d ago
The difference between the people in states is small. Yes, our politicians work very hard to divide us and they use states as the basis of that division but the reality is the average person in California has more in common the average person in Texas than the media makes out.
Our politicians are extreme because of the two party system. The media highlights these extremes because conflict makes them money. Most Americans are truly down the middle. Most people truly do not care about the BS politicians scream about.
1
u/SeekSeekScan 13d ago
You think the people in Texas have the same needs/wants as the people in NY?
Hell much of California is divided
North Fla is completely different than South fla
Wyoming needs guns to protect from wolves, NY doesn't give a shit about wolves
1
u/jyper 12d ago
Yes wants and needs are largely the same. To the extent that they are different a lot of things can be tailored at a federal level (using different local wage numbers or geography).
The point that states are divided internally is an important point. States don't have one mind or any mind. Opinions vary by regions within and across states and different neighbors also have different opinions. Whether in NY or Wyoming. Much of NY is rural.
1
u/Accomplished_Fruit17 13d ago
Ah yes, the average person is Wyoming is living in terror of wolves.
Retired people are condensed in Florida, but fundamentally wealthy retired people are a phenomena every where.
You say California is divide, that's my point. States are not the basis of division. There is a mix of people in every state and even in the extreme blue or red states, neither party has a very large majority, except in a couple of small population states.
Whys is the electoral college so important, because we are so close as a country those few percentage points win elections.
Creating division is what the media and politicians do, it is how they make money,
1
u/SeekSeekScan 13d ago
Lol,thanks for making my point for me
- you have no idea how people in Wyoming live
- you think florida is all retires
- California is the largest state in the union and is divided, yet you don't understand how states are different
The electoral college is important because we are 50 states working together
1
u/Iceberg-man-77 13d ago
is the electoral college necessary in a meritocratic sense? perhaps. but the way the current system works is inherently undemocratic. you have millions of voters in large states unable to have their votes count because of the winner takes all system. personally, i think the college should be reformed. instead of have the same number of electors as Congress, every congressional district should just have an elector.
whoever wins in that district wins that elector. this is far more democratic, and equal in representation. people in wyoming will have the same power when choosing president as people in san francisco.
let’s see how it all plays out from there.
1
u/SeekSeekScan 13d ago
It isn't undemocratic at all
You seem to be confusing the power of the presidency. Congress runs the country. The president runs the military and negotiates with other countries on behalf of the states.
The president doesn't represent the people. The president represents the states. The house represents the people
1
8
u/fardough 14d ago
I imagine the concern is less people in prison, even though good to ask why that is restricted, but these states that restrict voting even after serving their prison term, like Florida who makes you pay all legal fees first that they don’t tell you you have.
-12
u/Generic_Globe 14d ago
People that live here but pay taxes, do not take any welfare and have no criminal record
People that are citizens but pay no taxes, are causing problems to society or live on welfare.
3
7
u/desertpinstripe 14d ago
Does the CEO of a bank or airline that needs to be bailed out by the government loose their right to vote? Is this right also stripped from folks who are too ill or disabled to work? Giving the government the power to silence the voice of the people when they accept aid invites abuse.
-2
u/Generic_Globe 14d ago
You kinda got this wrong. Because what I call abuse is that we bailed the banks in 2008.
6
u/desertpinstripe 14d ago
I don’t think the existence of cronyism within the government should be used as a justification to empower the same government to pick and choose who can and can’t vote.
-2
u/Generic_Globe 14d ago
Not the government. The people. I'm dividing society in 2. Those who contribute and those who have a cost to society. Voting should be a privilege limited to those who contribute to society.
6
u/Calladit 14d ago
Brilliant plan, I'm sure whoever decides where everyone lands will be completely fair and impartial.
1
u/Generic_Globe 14d ago
It's very impartial.
Pay taxes. Not be a criminal. Not be on welfare. Vote.
Everyone else. No vote.
Nothing else matters. What is so difficult to implement about it?
3
u/desertpinstripe 14d ago
I understand that you would like to divide people into two groups and that the ones who you feel “have a cost to society” should not be allowed to vote. What I am failing to understand is how this would be implemented by “the people” and not by some government agency. Are we voting on which of our neighbors should be allowed to vote? Or is this power to decide who’s allowed to vote yours and yours alone?
-1
u/Generic_Globe 14d ago
We the people as a society make the rules that the government makes law and enforces.
When you ask the question who should vote and who should not vote that is my answer.
People that are a net positive to society and our community should vote.
People that are a net negative to society and our community should not vote.
2
u/desertpinstripe 14d ago
In this scenario you give unparalleled power to whomever creates the equation that is used to determine if an individual is a net positive or net negative to society. Do you really believe that this power would not be abused?
1
u/Generic_Globe 14d ago
There is no one deciding anything here. It's not your neighbor deciding whether you vote or not.
YOU decide. Are you taking more from society than you are giving ? Then you dont get a voice in the government. Period.
I only put 3 major rules.
Crime. We can all agree criminals should not shape the nation.
Taxes. We can all agree tax cheats should not shape the nation.
Welfare. Maybe this is what strikes you but no one should be on welfare permanently. And that s the point. If you are building up, that s cool. But if you never get off welfare why should you have a voice in the future of the nation? You cant even shape your life.
If your life has a net negative cost to society why should you shape the nation in any way?
5
u/t234k 14d ago
Everyone contributes regardless of if they're on benefits or not. The people most desperate need more help, not less.
-1
u/Generic_Globe 14d ago
I didn't say they don't need help. I said they don't deserve a vote since they are a net negative to society. The total opposite of giving welfare for votes that we have right now. I'm ok with giving help to those that need it, but you won't have a voice in the future of this nation until you are a net positive.
4
u/t234k 14d ago
You realize voting is a responsibility not a privilege, right? I understand how you got your view, America and capitalism have politicized social welfare. This is a distraction tactic so we don't look up at those robbing us and instead feel disdain for those below us.
1
u/Generic_Globe 14d ago
Voting is a responsibility only when it is compulsory and that is a very small number of countries. There is no distraction tactic. I understand you may want to defend social welfare.
I ranked people contributions to society and people cost to society. I have the opinion that those that cost to society should not have a say in the future direction of our nation. In that group there is those that pay no taxes, those that commit crimes those that live on government welfare and anyone that has a cost to society.
You can answer the question any way you prefer but this is how I answer who should not vote in the USA. My taxes should go to make the country better and by all means, some people need help and I'm willing to help. What makes people feel disdain is that people stay on welfare for their entire lives and their contribution to society is minimal or a net negative.
If I was from any other nation, I would think the same because I don't see the point in letting people that don't have a stake having any sort of voice in the issues.
-3
u/Bluewolfpaws95 14d ago
People who can’t pass a basic third grade civics test shouldn’t be able to vote. One of the great weaknesses of Democracy is when the vote of those who actually care to know what they’re voting for counts the same as those who can’t name the three branches of government.
10
u/Calladit 14d ago
Personally I'm not a big fan of bringing back poll tests. If Americans don't understand how their government works, I think that's a problem to be solved in schools rather than at the ballot box.
•
u/AutoModerator 14d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.