PDA

View Full Version : The "right to vote" for POTUS



Matt McKenzie
05-18-2009, 10:07 AM
As anyone who has read Article II of our Constitution knows, there is no Constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election. However, I believe that all 50 (or is it 57?) states use some form of popular vote to select electors.
Just a couple of questions:

Do you believe that every U.S. citizen of majority age should be guaranteed a "right to vote" in a Presidential election? Why or why not?

Should the Constitution be amended to change the way our President is elected?



I believe that not everyone should be allowed to vote in a Presidential election unless they can demonstate a basic understanding of the Federal Government and of the platforms upon which the candidates are running.
I believe that the electoral college works just fine as designed. It's the individual states that should hold the voters to a higher standard if popular vote is the method chosen to select electors.

Pete
05-18-2009, 12:22 PM
I think having a steady job might be a good place to start,,,or have proven to had a steady job before this mess.

I hate to see lazy ,,lying.,,,good for nothing except cashing welfare checks,,people voting for people who support their life style.

If you collect welfare you shouldn't have the right to vote.
They should Just be thankful that all the the rest of us take care of them

Pete

dixidawg
05-18-2009, 12:24 PM
How about first at least make sure they are a CITIZEN before allowing a vote?

badbullgator
05-18-2009, 12:26 PM
I think you should have to prove you know and/or understand how our goberment works.

YardleyLabs
05-18-2009, 12:55 PM
The right to vote is not defined explicitly in the Constitution but is there implicitly in many places. The right to vote may not be limited based on race (14th amendment) or gender (19th amendment). It may not be restricted based on age if you are 18 or older (26th amendment) or based on failure to pay poll taxes or any other taxes (24th amendment). One could also argue that voting was implicit in the Declaration of Independence which stated that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Personally, I believe that all persons that are citizens and legally adult should be able to vote without further restriction. I oppose anything that would base voting on demonstrated "competence" since the definition of "competence" would of necessity come from the consent of the governing rather than from the consent of the governed. As you think of empowering the government to make decisions about who is or is not a legitimate voter, remember that the government making those decisions may be one that you hate. BTW, consistent with my overall belief, I believe that it should also be illegal to prevent mental patients, prisoners, or convicted felons from voting. Governments have been using claims of insanity and criminality as a vehicle for denying the vote for as long as there have been elections.

Steve Amrein
05-18-2009, 12:58 PM
I would be happy if made up or dead people did not vote.

Like they say in Chicago "vote early and vote often"

I think the current system works or should I say could work well.

Steve Amrein
05-18-2009, 01:07 PM
Criminals have given up their right to vote when they were convicted. As far as insanity goes if you have been deamed insane and or under care that makes you a danger to yourself or others and cannot be liable for you actions or be so disconected socially than you have no reason/right to vote.

Mike Noel
05-18-2009, 01:19 PM
I dont believe in any restrictions but I would have no problem with the minimum voting age moved higher.....I know for damn sure when I was 18 I didn't put a whole lot of thought into who I voted for....knowing a lot of kids in that age range now, I don't think anything has changed.

twall
05-18-2009, 01:48 PM
The only time I ever thought about somehow restricitng who could vote was after I voted in the general elction this past fall. The thought of only allowing property owners to vote went through my mind. It isn't something I'd advocate but, I did think about it.

I had the feeling that in the past general election there were people who voted to "get theirs" as oppesed to voting on their beliefs and values. This may not have been true but what I saw and heard in my polling place made me feel this way. In our recent local election I didn't sense this since I was the only voter in the polling place when I voted.

I do think convicted felons have given up their right to vote.

I think, at least in Ohio, we have made it too easy to vote. there was a period of time where you could register and vote at the same time. Voting is fundamental to our government. I don't think catching someone at a Starbuck's, McDonald's, UDF, etc., and talking them in to voting is appropriate. If you don't care enough about the election to vote on election day. Or, plan far enough in advance to get an absentee ballot then you shouldn't vote.

Tom

road kill
05-18-2009, 01:52 PM
How about first at least make sure they are a CITIZEN before allowing a vote?
It would be nice to make sure a person was a CTITZEN before we allow them to be PRESIDENT!!

just sayin'





BTW-I am not convinced "the Obama" is not a citizen, but I am also not convinced he is.

badbullgator
05-18-2009, 02:31 PM
The only time I ever thought about somehow restricitng who could vote was after I voted in the general elction this past fall. The thought of only allowing property owners to vote went through my mind. It isn't something I'd advocate but, I did think about it.

I had the feeling that in the past general election there were people who voted to "get theirs" as oppesed to voting on their beliefs and values. This may not have been true but what I saw and heard in my polling place made me feel this way. In our recent local election I didn't sense this since I was the only voter in the polling place when I voted.

I do think convicted felons have given up their right to vote.

I think, at least in Ohio, we have made it too easy to vote. there was a period of time where you could register and vote at the same time. Voting is fundamental to our government. I don't think catching someone at a Starbuck's, McDonald's, UDF, etc., and talking them in to voting is appropriate. If you don't care enough about the election to vote on election day. Or, plan far enough in advance to get an absentee ballot then you shouldn't vote.

Tom


Property owners would be to elitists. Just because someone can’t of does not own property does not mean they are incapable of casting an educated vote. I think there are many, many, many non property owners that are definitely capable of voting. I would be interested in why you would think that one?

I don’t think all felons are created equally and I am not sure why the right to vote must be given up in most cases. Maybe if your felony involved election fraud, but really why should someone with felony not be allowed to vote. What are you afraid of? Paid the price why can’t they vote? I don’t necessarily feel the same about gun laws regarding felons, but I think not having the right to vote is kind of silly in most cases.


Now I do totally agree that it has been made too easy to vote. If you are too lazy to go and register you probably should not be voting because you are probably too lazy to take the time to know much about the candidates. I don’t like the idea of people sitting outside stores trying to “recruit” votes to register. I also would not be against a raise in the age to vote. I have been voting since I was 20, but I will be the first to admit that I knew very little about the world at that age.

Roger Perry
05-18-2009, 03:09 PM
Hell, why have the right to vote at all. Just ask George Bush.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —President-elect George W. Bush, at a photo-op with congressional leaders during his first trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

Matt McKenzie
05-18-2009, 03:19 PM
The right to vote is not defined explicitly in the Constitution but is there implicitly in many places. The right to vote may not be limited based on race (14th amendment) or gender (19th amendment). It may not be restricted based on age if you are 18 or older (26th amendment) or based on failure to pay poll taxes or any other taxes (24th amendment). One could also argue that voting was implicit in the Declaration of Independence which stated that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Personally, I believe that all persons that are citizens and legally adult should be able to vote without further restriction. I oppose anything that would base voting on demonstrated "competence" since the definition of "competence" would of necessity come from the consent of the governing rather than from the consent of the governed. As you think of empowering the government to make decisions about who is or is not a legitimate voter, remember that the government making those decisions may be one that you hate. BTW, consistent with my overall belief, I believe that it should also be illegal to prevent mental patients, prisoners, or convicted felons from voting. Governments have been using claims of insanity and criminality as a vehicle for denying the vote for as long as there have been elections.


While those amendments did away with restrictions to the right to vote granted by the States or the right to vote for Representatives to Congress, I disagree that there is an implicit "right to vote" in a Presidential election anywhere in the Constitution. Article II explicitly states how the President is elected and there is nothing in it mentioning a popular vote. It explicitly states that the state legislatures select the electors by whatever means they choose. It is obvious by reading the Constitution that the only Federal office chosen directly by the people was that of Representative. The State legislatures selected Senators and Electors by whatever method they wanted. The 17th Amendment changed the way Senators are selected and the individual States have chosen popular vote to select electors. In the process, the individual States have lost representation in Washington, and the Federal Government has grown far beyond the bounds initially envisioned by the founders.

If competence is not a requirement, why is age a factor? If we should allow convicted felons, those declared legally insane or all of our fellow citizens who can't name the three branches of government the "right to vote", why can't my 14-year-old vote? He is more qualified to make an informed decision than most of these people. Just a guess here, but I assume that the original reason for limiting sufferage to those over 18 years old has something to do with maturity, education and competence. Why an age requirement?

Goose
05-18-2009, 03:31 PM
Anybody who voted for Dear Leader should be permanently banned from voting again. They should take up residence in Cuba, China, Russia or Venezuela and vote there.

Anybody on active duty military should have his vote count double.

Anybody who voted for Ronald Reagan in the 80's should have his vote counted 1.5 times.

And anybody living in Nancy Pelosi's district should be banned forever!

twall
05-18-2009, 03:38 PM
Corey,

My thought process on property ownership was that property owners have a higher stake in our country. But, note, I mentioned this was something I though about but not something I am advocating. That would definately create a ruling class in our country. Our founders never imagined our government would become the support for such a large portion of our citizens.

As far at the felons go, most convicted felons committed their crimes with the knowledge, and intent, to break the law. If you do not have have enough respect for the laws of our country you should not be voting for the lawmakers of our country.

I feel gun ownership is very important. But, not as important as the right to vote. Reckless, illegal voting is much more dangerous to our nation than recklass gun ownership. In some states it is much easier to vote, even multiple times, than to buy a gun. I grew up in IL. To own a gun or buy ammunition I had to have a state issued FOID, Firearm Ownership ID, card. It included my picture. I may have had to submit fingerprints too. I don't remember. It was more difficult than getting a drivers license. Growing up in Cook County I was aware at an early age of the power of the vote and how it can be manipulated.

Tom

YardleyLabs
05-18-2009, 03:39 PM
...why can't my 14-year-old vote? He is more qualified to make an informed decision than most of these people. Just a guess here, but I assume that the original reason for limiting sufferage to those over 18 years old has something to do with maturity, education and competence. Why an age requirement?

Actually, there is no Federal minimum age to vote. If your state so chose, it could adopt any minimum age as long as it was no older than 18.

Richard Halstead
05-18-2009, 03:42 PM
As a person that has to use Absentee ballots to cast my vote, I believe they should count and those in the military should also count. Enough of trying to decide who won the Minnesota senate seat. Whom ever wins the senate seat should be chosen by the vote not the courts.

I may not have voted the winner, but 7 months after the election it is to be decided in the court. The problem absentee ballots from soldiers in the remote areas are being questioned.

Hew
05-18-2009, 03:45 PM
Hell, why have the right to vote at all. Just ask George Bush.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —President-elect George W. Bush, at a photo-op with congressional leaders during his first trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
You're like a broken record player...with the needle stuck on "La Macarena." In spanish. By the chimpmunks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5GiNlVbzFQ&feature=related

Steve Amrein
05-18-2009, 03:57 PM
Hell, why have the right to vote at all. Just ask George Bush.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —President-elect George W. Bush, at a photo-op with congressional leaders during his first trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000


Hey Roger yo do know Dubya is now retired in Craford dont ya.;-)

Do you want to talk about Bill " I did not have sex" Clinton

Franco
05-18-2009, 04:23 PM
I think only sole property owners that pass a basic Civics Test in English should have the right to vote and pay a poll tax!

On another voting subject;

Several states dominated by Democrats are going to be asking for a bailout. States like California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Florida are in deep financial doo doo. We know how this current administration likes to throw money at every concieved problem so, should these states loose the right to vote if they get bailed out with borrowed money that tax payers will have to repay one day?

YardleyLabs
05-18-2009, 04:35 PM
I think only sole property owners that pass a basic Civics Test in English should have the right to vote and pay a poll tax!

On another voting subject;

Several states dominated by Democrats are going to be asking for a bailout. States like California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Florida are in deep financial doo doo. We know how this current administration likes to throw money at every concieved problem so, should these states loose the right to vote if they get bailed out with borrowed money that tax payers will have to repay one day?

Interesting that two of the states you mention (CA/FL) have Republican governors now and for the last several years and another (MA) had a Republican governor for many years until a recent turnover. Is that what we call Democratic domination?

Franco
05-18-2009, 04:53 PM
Interesting that two of the states you mention (CA/FL) have Republican governors now and for the last several years and another (MA) had a Republican governor for many years until a recent turnover. Is that what we call Democratic domination?

California had a great Gov. in Wilson. But, he wasn't sensative to the "gay" or "illegals" issues and was was voted out for other Govs with softer brains.

Yes, Fla, Mich and Mass had Republican govs, that is in name only.
What do these states all have in common? A huge illegal problem that they can't talk about because it isn't PC!

dixidawg
05-18-2009, 05:03 PM
Interesting that two of the states you mention (CA/FL) have Republican governors now and for the last several years and another (MA) had a Republican governor for many years until a recent turnover. Is that what we call Democratic domination?


Although Mass may have had "Republican" governors, we have been completely, as Booty says, "dominated by Democrats".....

Here is the current Republican representation in Mass:

U.S. Senators:

NoneMassachusetts Statewide Officers:

NoneControl of the State Legislature

Seats Held in the State House of Representatives: 16 (10%)
Seats Held in the State Senate: 5 (12.5%)Members of the United States Congress:

None

It has been this way for as long as I can remember. To believe that Mass is or has been anything but "dominated by Democrats" is simply not true.

Bob Gutermuth
05-18-2009, 05:33 PM
It wouldn't hurt my feelings if prospective voters had to take a written test to show they had a grasp of the issues in elections. I also think that one ought to be an incometaxpayer or have paied such taxes in the past, eg retired people. The freeloaders shouldn't be voting our taxes up.

BrianW
05-18-2009, 05:54 PM
There is no 'right" to drive a car, but yet you must pass a written & a proficiency test in order to get a license to do so. :o I think that who's running the country is bit more important than that.

If you can't read the ballot and understand how it works, i.e. "butterfly ballots, hanging "chads" etc., you have NO business voting for the Presidential electors or any other office, imo! It's not "rocket surgery"! ;)

Also, if you're old enough to enlist, fight & die for this country, you're damn well old enough to vote for the CinC that going to send you there.:-x

Uncle Bill
05-18-2009, 05:54 PM
It wouldn't hurt my feelings if prospective voters had to take a written test to show they had a grasp of the issues in elections. I also think that one ought to be an incometaxpayer or have paied such taxes in the past, eg retired people. The freeloaders shouldn't be voting our taxes up.


HEAR! HEAR! That includes members of the cabinet.

But I'm with the folks that are saying if we could just stop the dead and illegals from voting...so frequently..

Like when our mentally challenged Democrat Senator in Sodak won, by getting more votes from the Pine Ridge reservation than there are people...period.

Dayum, I'm even contemplating running against Johnson next time. Getting that res vote is soooo simple...Busch and ice cream.

UB