If I'm a small business man, I'd vote for the candidate who would keep my taxes low. Conflict of interest.
If I'm a teacher, I vote for a candidate who promises to put more money into education. Conflict of interest.
If I'm a software engineer, I vote for a candidate who promises to increase copyright law. Conflict of interest.
I'm an elected government official, I vote for myself. Conflict of interest.
I could go on and on, but the idea we shouldn't let a certain segment of the population vote because society has kicked them in the teeth is absurd and very dangerous thinking.
I selected "Other" because I think the vote should be weighted according to the degree of dependence the person has on the state or others. Welfare might make up 10% of one person's needs vs. 95% of another person's needs. I don't think it makes sense to completely eradicate civic participation among anyone who gets help, I just think the votes should weigh a little less to the extent that one relies on government for basic needs.
"The knowledge and prudence of the poor themselves, are absolutely the only means by which any general and permanent improvement in their condition can be effected." - Thomas Malthus
I'm one of the guys who voted "other".
Veterans should have the right to vote.
“Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”