Should the poor be allowed to vote?

[goofyjim]

Because I have an awareness of our own sociology and political science.

For as long as that select few can make an intelligent voting decision, yes, I’m all for it.

So you haven’t answered the question. How do you know those select few are any more capable of intelligent voting? Everyone has ulterior motives. It’s called being human.

 

[goofyjim]

First off, we aren’t a democracy. Just to clarify. We are a representative republic.

Secondly, of course all men are created equal. The question is whether or not some of our actions have consequences that remove “rights” from us (you’ll notice that my original post was not really based on poverty, per se, but choices and consequences - perhaps wrongly chosen, but all the same). The answer is yes.

If a man molests his daughter he loses the “right” to have children in his home.

If a woman declares bankruptcy, she loses the “right” to get a reasonable home loan.

The question is whether there are things one can do which demonstrate that he has done enough harm on an individual level that he should be restricted from spreading that damage to others through, say, a federal election.

You may answer no, as some have done, but I’m afraid that falling back on the “all men are created equal” line doesn’t settle it once and for all.

Then we should “represent” everyone.

 

[awfulthings9]

Then we should “represent” everyone.

But you were one of those (myself included) proposing that we exclude criminals. Aren’t they part of “everyone”?

And on that note, another thing we should focus on as a country is making sure that the states are represented. Currently they are not.

But we have representatives from each state that go to Congress, one might argue.

Sure, but the representatives are elected by the people and, in order to secure those votes, are not focused on securing states rights against an overbearing and ineffective federal government.

Some of the smallest European countries have representatives in Congress, but not the state of Missouri.

 

[goofyjim]

But you were one of those (myself included) proposing that we exclude criminals. Aren’t they part of “everyone”?

And on that note, another thing we should focus on as a country is making sure that the states are represented. Currently they are not.

But we have representatives from each state that go to Congress, one might argue.

Sure, but the representatives are elected by the people and, in order to secure those votes, are not focused on securing states rights against an overbearing and ineffective federal government.

Some of the smallest European countries have representatives in Congress, but not the state of Missouri.

A government does not represent other governments. It represents people. “Of the people, for the people, by the people.” I could be wrong about excluding criminals but if there was going to be any group that shouldn’t be allowed to vote it is them. If you want to include them, fine, but then you must have the poor represented as well.

All the states have representatives in Congress my friend. That would include Missouri. Not sure where you are getting your information but it sure sounds bogus. The only US locale that is not represented currently is the District of Columbia, which I believe they are trying to work out a way to change that.

 

[awfulthings9]

A government does not represent other governments. It represents people. “Of the people, for the people, by the people.” I could be wrong about excluding criminals but if there was going to be any group that shouldn’t be allowed to vote it is them. If you want to include them, fine, but then you must have the poor represented as well.

All the states have representatives in Congress my friend. That would include Missouri. Not sure where you are getting your information but it sure sounds bogus. The only US locale that is not represented currently is the District of Columbia, which I believe they are trying to work out a way to change that.

Goofyjim, you didn’t read my post carefully enough. The states do not have representatives. The people of that state do. However, since both senators and representatives are voted in by the people, the actual state government does not have an “appointed” representative to ensure that state rights are protected against an overreaching federal government. However, the actual governments of almost every other country in the world have representatives to protect the interests of those governments in the foreign policy of the US. Who, for instance, represents the right of the Missouri government if the federal level wants to pass legislation taking it away from that state? Since the represenatives and senators are both elected, they have no loyalties to protecting state autonomy. This is basic civics.

 

[goofyjim]

Goofyjim, you didn’t read my post carefully enough. The states do not have representatives. The people of that state do. However, since both senators and representatives are voted in by the people, the actual state government does not have an “appointed” representative to ensure that state rights are protected against an overreaching federal government. However, the actual governments of almost every other country in the world have representatives to protect the interests of those governments in the foreign policy of the US. Who, for instance, represents the right of the Missouri government if the federal level wants to pass legislation taking it away from that state? Since the represenatives and senators are both elected, they have no loyalties to protecting state autonomy. This is basic civics.

States are not voting entities. People are. The people within a state speak for their state. The representatives represent the state by representing the people in that state. This is how government works. This is basic civics.

 

[awfulthings9]

States are not voting entities. People are. The people within a state speak for their state. The representatives represent the state by representing the people in that state. This is how government works. This is basic civics.

The problem is that the poor are losing their voice because one vote has much more (name removed by moderator)act at the local level. If states are not able to protect their citizens with the liberties and restrictions necessary for that geographical and cultural area, they become discriminated against. When our representatives are not in Washington to stand up for state rights, the states become powerless to stand up for the citizens, disadvantaged or otherwise, within their borders. Your mentality shows how indoctrinated we’ve become the federal government being the big babysitter. A lot of good it has done for the poor.

 

[goofyjim]

The problem is that the poor are losing their voice because one vote has much more (name removed by moderator)act at the local level. If states are not able to protect their citizens with the liberties and restrictions necessary for that geographical and cultural area, they become discriminated against. When our representatives are not in Washington to stand up for state rights, the states become powerless to stand up for the citizens, disadvantaged or otherwise, within their borders. Your mentality shows how indoctrinated we’ve become the federal government being the big babysitter. A lot of good it has done for the poor.

Thank you. I donot see the federal government as a big babysitter. Youi are insulting and I can no longer carry on a conversation with you.

 

[whatevergirl]

On another thread (perhaps the one on salary caps for CEO’s), someone suggested another poster start this thread, adding the comment that nobody on this forum would argue that the poor, indeed, should be restricted from voting.

So … here it is!

Actually, I’m going to refine the question a bit and ask, should there be cultural restrictions on who should be allowed to vote. Early on in our nation’s history, one had to be white and male, of course, but also a property owner (I’m sure we could all agree there were some problems there). Now, one must be over 18 (and, perhaps, not a felon, though I don’t know the specifics of that).

MTV’s Rock the Vote, as well as other programs, push the agenda that everyone who is legally able should get out and make their voice heard.

But should everyone’s voice be heard? A woman on some news channel or the other commented that she voted for Edwards in the primary because she “likes his hair”.

Starting with the premise that no “right” to vote exists (or does it?), and it is merely a privilege, are there restrictions which would, over all, make for a more thoughtful vote by the public at large?

I’m sure this post sounds incredibly insensitive, but as with my last thread on the Civil War and abortion, I’m trying to act as Devil’s Advocate to explore an idea of Catholic social teachings. Does our obligation to look after the poor and less fortunate of our society mandate that we also allow a political voice to those same groups?

So, for starters, how about these qualifiers:

To vote, one must:

1. have a college degree or own a house
2. not have declared bankruptcy
3. have no criminal record (beyond minor misdemeanors)
4. be gainfully employed (unless diagnosed with a physical disability)
5. be male

Remember, I’m being Devil’s Advocate (and fully acknowledging that there are intelligent, well-reasoned people who would fail the above litmus test) by suggesting that the common good would be served best by restricting the privilege of voting. This is not (necessarily) my opinion.

Putting political correctness aside, any takers?

ps. kidding on number 5

Without being mind readers, we could never possibly know why people vote for who they vote for–I mean, some might say 'I like the way he/she looks, or sounds, ’ but really, there could be pertinent issues that resonate with people that we simply don’t know about. I think everyone has a right to vote–everyone. Being poor doesn’t mean you are ill informed, or uneducated. A person could be going through a rough patch, etc, and they are struggling financially. A man/woman could be going through a messy divorce, and have little in the way of finances. Someone’s financial status has no bearing on whether or not he/she should be permitted to vote. Just my two cents.:twocents:

 

[awfulthings9]

Without being mind readers, we could never possibly know why people vote for who they vote for–I mean, some might say 'I like the way he/she looks, or sounds, ’ but really, there could be pertinent issues that resonate with people that we simply don’t know about. I think everyone has a right to vote–everyone. Being poor doesn’t mean you are ill informed, or uneducated. A person could be going through a rough patch, etc, and they are struggling financially. A man/woman could be going through a messy divorce, and have little in the way of finances. Someone’s financial status has no bearing on whether or not he/she should be permitted to vote. Just my two cents.:twocents:

Thank you. Good insight.

 

[awfulthings9]

Thank you. I donot see the federal government as a big babysitter. Youi are insulting and I can no longer carry on a conversation with you.

I apologize. I didn’t mean to be insulting. You’ve set a very civil tone, and I hate that I couldn’t live up to it.

Let this stupid thread die of lack of interest.

This htread is senseless in itself.

I don’t know where you got the stupid idea that this isn’t a democracy.

 

[goofyjim]

The only reason I would deny the criminal his vote is that this is a free society. None of the other categories has forfeited their freedom whereas the criminal has. One of those freedoms the criminal should lose is their representation in government. Everyone else should be represented and not be accused of lack of intelligence or whatever. They should all be allowed to vote.

 

[awfulthings9]

The only reason I would deny the criminal his vote is that this is a free society. None of the other categories has forfeited their freedom whereas the criminal has. One of those freedoms the criminal should lose is their representation in government. Everyone else should be represented and not be accused of lack of intelligence or whatever. They should all be allowed to vote.

Thank you, Jim. I’m sorry we got off on the wrong foot, but I really do want to have an intelligent exchange with you about this. So, let me take what you have written and ask this:

Some criminals have made overtly evil choices (such as cold-blooded murder). Others have committed crimes of necessity (in their eyes) or from not being in a “right state of mind” (such as a crime of revenge). None of those are justified, of course. Some have committed crimes (as other posters have pointed out) simply because they disagree with the law and choose not to recognize it. Others have committed crimes because they were irresponsible (drunk while hunting) and committed a worse harm than they considered possible (involuntary manslaughter while hunting and intoxicated).

Some, of course, are innocent and wrongly convicted.

Would you put them all in the same boat of being in a group that “should” lose the right to vote? If so, why? If not, how would that line be fairly drawn?

Either answer is fine - I’m just trying to get an understanding of where you come from. Remember that I’m with you on this particular point (at least from my perspective as the Devil’s Advocate), but I’m trying to see if your reasoning is the same.

Peace, brother.

 

[goofyjim]

Thank you, Jim. I’m sorry we got off on the wrong foot, but I really do want to have an intelligent exchange with you about this. So, let me take what you have written and ask this:

Some criminals have made overtly evil choices (such as cold-blooded murder). Others have committed crimes of necessity (in their eyes) or from not being in a “right state of mind” (such as a crime of revenge). None of those are justified, of course. Some have committed crimes (as other posters have pointed out) simply because they disagree with the law and choose not to recognize it. Others have committed crimes because they were irresponsible (drunk while hunting) and committed a worse harm than they considered possible (involuntary manslaughter while hunting and intoxicated).

Some, of course, are innocent and wrongly convicted.

Would you put them all in the same boat of being in a group that “should” lose the right to vote? If so, why? If not, how would that line be fairly drawn?

Either answer is fine - I’m just trying to get an understanding of where you come from. Remember that I’m with you on this particular point (at least from my perspective as the Devil’s Advocate), but I’m trying to see if your reasoning is the same.

Peace, brother.

We don’t have the ability to discern their reasons unless they are disclosed by them. Therefore, yes, I would put them all in the same boat as having sacrificed their freedom to vote. But the other categories have not done so and therefore should be allowed to vote even if it becomes a popularity contest. Isn’t it that way even among the rich and intelligent?

 

[awfulthings9]

We don’t have the ability to discern their reasons unless they are disclosed by them. Therefore, yes, I would put them all in the same boat as having sacrificed their freedom to vote. But the other categories have not done so and therefore should be allowed to vote even if it becomes a popularity contest. Isn’t it that way even among the rich and intelligent?

So you admit that putting this restriction will, unfortunately, have some collateral damage? That there will be some who will not be given the opportunity to vote because we have no clear way of separating the sheep from the goats, so to speak, in the prison system?

I’m fine with that answer, but want to make sure I understand what you are saying before I respond.

 

[goofyjim]

So you admit that putting this restriction will, unfortunately, have some collateral damage? That there will be some who will not be given the opportunity to vote because we have no clear way of separating the sheep from the goats, so to speak, in the prison system?

I’m fine with that answer, but want to make sure I understand what you are saying before I respond.

You understand quite well. Those who are wrongfully convicted are usually freed in time and get their record expunged. So they can vote again. The properly convicted have sacrificed their vote no matter what the reason.

 

[awfulthings9]

You understand quite well. Those who are wrongfully convicted are usually freed in time and get their record expunged. So they can vote again. The properly convicted have sacrificed their vote no matter what the reason.

Well, I would say that we don’t know that for sure because there is no way to have a count of those who are wrongly accused and never get exonerated. There may be quite a few. Some say there are.

But let’s go with that, I have a question, but I need three more points of clarification before I ask.

What would you say to those who suggest that the justice system is so broken as to target the poor, those who have no money to defend themselves, and that a great amount of the rich either buy their way out of a conviction, do not get caught because their white collar crimes are less overt, etc.? Would this mean that preventing criminals from voting is a way to restrict the poor?

Also, do you see any contradiction between your view and the corporal work of mercy that asks us to have compassion on the imprisoned? I don’t, but want to know how you see it exactly.

Lastly, does it bother you at all that, with this view, Paul, Jesus, and others from the New Testament wouldn’t be able to vote because of several instances when they were wrongly imprisoned (and never cleared)? Some argue that in certain areas of our country, the justice system is no less corrupt (especially with regard to certain races) than what we see in the NT. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with this, but curious to your answer.

Thanks Jim!

 

[goofyjim]

Well, I would say that we don’t know that for sure because there is no way to have a count of those who are wrongly accused and never get exonerated. There may be quite a few. Some say there are.

But let’s go with that, I have a question, but I need three more points of clarification before I ask.

What would you say to those who suggest that the justice system is so broken as to target the poor, those who have no money to defend themselves, and that a great amount of the rich either buy their way out of a conviction, do not get caught because their white collar crimes are less overt, etc.? Would this mean that preventing criminals from voting is a way to restrict the poor?

Also, do you see any contradiction between your view and the corporal work of mercy that asks us to have compassion on the imprisoned? I don’t, but want to know how you see it exactly.

Lastly, does it bother you at all that, with this view, Paul, Jesus, and others from the New Testament wouldn’t be able to vote because of several instances when they were wrongly imprisoned (and never cleared)? Some argue that in certain areas of our country, the justice system is no less corrupt (especially with regard to certain races) than what we see in the NT. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with this, but curious to your answer.

Thanks Jim!

Point well taken. Then allow criminals to vote. In fact just allow everyone to vote. That way everyone will be equally represented.

 

[awfulthings9]

Point well taken. Then allow criminals to vote. In fact just allow everyone to vote. That way everyone will be equally represented.

What about illegal immigrants?

 

[goofyjim]

What about illegal immigrants?

I meant legal citizens. I thought I clarified that in previous posts.