The definition of fascism you provided doesn't support the idea that your statement is an example of fascism, as the proposal under discussion...
-is not authoritarian
-is not nationalist
-has nothing to do with a corporatist economy
-has nothing to do with the ideologies associated with the above
No... the sole purpose of the law is to make sure that a certain group of people does not use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society. Period.The sole purpose of such a law would be to give one group of people power over another, period.
THAT is a good idea. Period.
Not according to your definition of fascism.This country would no longer be a Representative Republic. It would put us on the road to a Fascist state.
The US Constitiution does not say EVERYONE gets one vote; as you have agreed, some people can be prohibited from voting.The US Constitution says that each citizen gets 1 vote...
Strawman:...regardless of how much money he or she makes, period.
The proposal in question does not rest upon income; no one with $0 in income is necessarily barred from voting.
The VRA doesnt define the Constitution. There are numerous Constituionally valid restructions on who can vote; to argue that a restriction on who can vote, in and of itself violates the Constitution is unsupportable.Now add the voting rights legislation in 1965 and Constitutionally it fails.
No, its to make sure that a certain group of people does not use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of societyNo it's not. It is nothing but a power play to silence the poor.
How is that NOT a good idea?
You WANT a certain group of people to be able to their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society?
THAT is a good idea?
How is it more arbitrary that limiting voting age to 18?Yes it is, so what?