Earning the Vote

[FrustratedFool]

People are fools, are you really surprised when they act accordingly?

You cannot educate the ignorant, look at the population of trumptardia, if you harbor any doubts.

Wouldn't that be a good argument for limiting voting by a set of criteria?

[no one]

Ignorance of this caliber doesn't just spring up overnight, it seethes and ferments until the fumes of the smoldering blaze snuff out enough cognition, for it to become dangerous. By then, it is too late it has already infected the next crop.

Hoomans are easily manipulated. The manipulators can't have their sheep replaced.

[FrustratedFool]

Are you easily manipulated?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Today in earning the vote news, voters in ohio passed two bills despite a constant stream of reich wing lies, intentionally misleading verbiage, and outright voter purges.  The reich immediately explained that it has no intention of honoring the will of the voters.  Instead, they plan to punish voters for being high information civic minded americans.

Provide a link so I can read for myself? The only thing I find is a single state representative urging this. He's one state rep ... from North Dakota.

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, North Dakota State Representative Brandon Prichard argued Tuesday's Issue 1 vote in Ohio should be ignored.

He said: "Direct democracy should not exist. Case-in-point: Ohio legalizing the slaughter of babies.

"It would be an act of courage to ignore the results of the election and not allow for the murder of Ohio babies. We are probably 10 years away from this opinion being acceptable though."

Ohio has a Republican governor in Mike DeWine, with the GOP also controlling both chambers of the state legislature, though none of these have suggested they will flat out ignore Tuesday's election result.

Prichard was challenged by Liam Siegler, a writer who has been published by the conservative National Review, who said: "I don't like today's results either but we have a constitution for a reason."

The North Dakota Republican replied: "'Our political process which has been high jacked by progressives over the last 100 years is the reason to allow the murder of babies.' Sorry friend, not a good take."

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-push...lt-1842226

Is this what you're referring to? What ya got?

[arewethereyet]

I still say that the requirements for voting need to be kept to a minimum. When you start putting various tests on who can and cannot vote you leave yourself open to manipulation in favor of the rule makers.

[Ravenshire]

People are fools, are you really surprised when they act accordingly?

You cannot educate the ignorant, look at the population of trumptardia, if you harbor any doubts.

Wouldn't that be a good argument for limiting voting by a set of criteria?

NO!

Any set of criteria you set can be twisted and leveraged by those in power to disenfranchise blocks of voters who would vote them out, or at least attempt to. Once you draw a line in the sand, you can move it, change it, obfuscate it... We've seen first hand, in this country, how tests for voting can be abused.

Proponents of tests to prove an applicant’s ability to read and understand English claimed that the exams ensured an educated and informed electorate. In practice they were used to disqualify immigrants and the poor, who had less education. In the South they were used to prevent African Americans from registering to vote. The Voting Rights Act ended the use of literacy tests in the South in 1965 and the rest of the country in 1970.

(my emphasis) Link

As much as I wish the Trumpists would choose not to vote, I have no interest whatsoever in forcibly stopping them from doing so.

[FrustratedFool]

So you wouldn't limit the vote at all?

Surely we must have some criteria. The only argument seems to be what and why.

[Ravenshire]

So you wouldn't limit the vote at all?

Surely we must have some criteria.  The only argument seems to be what and why.

I believe voting is a right. What you're advocating would make it a privilege, and I have no interested in ruling as the privileged or being ruled by them. Citizenship (or, recognized permanent resident status) and a reasonable age limit. Those are the only criteria I consider acceptable, and they should be protected such that a vote of the people be required to change them.

[FrustratedFool]

So you do accept some criteria.

What is the rationale for age (what age specifically?) and citizenship?

[Ravenshire]

So you do accept some criteria.

What is the rationale for age (what age specifically?) and citizenship?

You seem to have misinterpreted (quite fairly if I'm to be honest) my emphatic NO as a refutation of all criteria, where I was simply refuting your proposed additional criteria.

Citizenship (or, recognized permanent residency) seems fairly obvious to me. The citizens of a country/state/county/municipality should be the ones deciding the laws/lawmakers for that country/state/county/municipality.

Age is more a line in the sand, but an already established one that most find reasonable. With age comes understanding. No one believes a 4-year old can make an informed decision about political matters, nor does anyone think most 30+ are unable. 18 is the acceptable age here, and I have no problem with it. What I would take issue with, is politicians arbitrarily changing it and disenfranchising millions of a right they already hold.

I tend to think of rights the way I think of plumbing. The more complicated you make the pipes, the more likely you'll plug up the works.