If you don’t have any ideas about how political decisions should be made, then I’m not sure why you’re arguing about a political question.Arkansan:
I don’t propose a standard at allniceatheist:
Then what standard do you propose for making political decisions?
And you’ve still not presented any argument for why this is a good idea. Lots of bad ideas are widely put into practice.
This is another ad hominem.
I have plenty of ideas. I just don’t think I have any authority or right to decide who should be encouraged to vote based upon what I think are serious reasons to vote for any candidate. I can make my argument, and that’s where my rights to influence others begins and ends.niceatheist:
If you don’t have any ideas about how political decisions should be made, then I’m not sure why you’re arguing about a political question.Arkansan:
I don’t propose a standard at allniceatheist:
Then what standard do you propose for making political decisions?
It’s a good idea because every citizen has a stake in how their country is governed. You know, that whole “government of the people, by the people and for the people”. the very core of that greatest of speeches on liberty. Lincoln didn’t say “government of the smart people” or “government of the white people” or “government of the serious people.” We are all “the people” in whatever state, province or country in which we vote, and those people we elect to those public offices are there to govern in our name and for our benefit and with our democratic approval, so darned straight it’s only appropriate that “the people”, however white or brown or smart or dull they may be, have their say.
No it isn’t. It’s a reasonable question based on your belief that targeting certain groups with voter registrations will somehow lead to more “irresponsible” voters.
Okay. Then what do you believe should be the guiding principle of political action, if not the common good?
Should any citizens be denied the right to vote?
Do you know what an ad hominem is?
I’m not sure either. I think of people that are religiously opposed to vote. Forcing them to vote would be a first ammendment violation.
I disagree. I also think there’s no way to assure that there is an equal effort demand put on everyone. Being able to get to a voter registration location will put different demands on those with cars v those without, those with kids v those without, people with different work schedules, so on.
Voting isn’t a right. The amendments you reference regulate voting and on what basis you can deny the vote. There remain plenty of legitimate grounds for denying the vote.
No. Participating in society is a civic duty. An individual might best participate in society by not voting because his opinion is so ill informed or he lacks basic intelligence.
The many laws with “Voting rights” in their titles and bodies disagree with this.
I agree. I understand for my local areas there had been people that avoided registering too because they were trying to avoid jury duty (something I can kind of understand since it can result in several days of loss compensation if you have a job that doesn’t pay you while at jury duty). The local counties decided to start using additional records for populating the jury pool which dissolved that demotivator for people to register.
I said "titles and bodies."Additionally there have been many rulings based on these laws that also disagree with your perspective. It sounds like you may be operating from a different premise than most of the other people in this thread.ThinkingSapien:
Titles of legislation mean nothing.
You are incorrect. Voting is a right. It is the most basic, and important right in any representative government. I will charitably assume you live under an authoritarian regime and don’t understand. I’m sorry about that, I can pm you some information on seeking asylum in a nation that has a representative government.