• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is voting a right

Voting is

  • A right

    Votes: 20 69.0%
  • a privilege

    Votes: 9 31.0%

  • Total voters
    29
It is a right. As with all rights it can be revoked like with felons and guns etc. If it was not a right, we would not be a representative republic.

Makes it no less the right of every citizen. If in Chicago, it's a right even if you are dead!
 
Last edited:
Yeah weird, as a boss I never did any such thing. I worked my ass off. And as a manager in my new job, I expect I'll be doing more of the same.
There are workers who manage and coordinate other workers to be sure. Some of this description are remarkably productive. But generally, the model, pretty much everywhere, be it private or public sector is that there are productive workers scraping by on starvation wages, moderately productive managers above them doing a little better and at the top there is generally someone making obscenely more and doing virtually nothing. Factory worker vs CEO. Teacher vs District Administrator. Etc, etc.
But perhaps this is another topic for another day. I think we've got about one and a half more posts on the topic before we're accused of being off topic or worse, hijacking the thread.
 
It does not exist in the United States Constitution.

Not sure where this is coming from. The Constitution very explicitly deals with voting.

14th Amendment, Clause 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such

19th Amend:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24th Amend:

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amend:
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
 
Not sure where this is coming from. The Constitution very explicitly deals with voting.

14th Amendment, Clause 2:
19th Amend:
24th Amend:
26th Amend:

All those things only prevent voting discrimination based on race, sex, age etc.

There is no Federal right to vote, it does not exist.
 
You're surprised that people react negatively when you make completely ridiculous and offensive comments based on little more than your own innate biases?

The fact that a particular group of people doesn't vote the way you would like them to is not a rationale for denying them the right to vote. If we allocated voting rights on such an arbitrary manner, you might find yourself on the short end of the stick.

Where in the forum rules is flaming allowed so long as you think poorly of someone's point of view?
 
You claimed that “single women should not be allowed to vote” because in effect they will vote their interests.

But, of course, that is the foundation of democracy: people voting their interests.

You just don't like the way single women see their interests. Hence you would seek to exclude them.

You don't love true democracy because oftentimes the outcome is not in agreement with your perception of your interests.

The only conclusion I have is that women are changing our society because, at last, just in this past century they have a direct hand in shaping it.

Don't like it? Tough, meet you at the ballot box.

I'm here to debate a topic. If you would rather fight please take it to the Basement. There are plenty of anti-Jerry threads there to choose from.

If you would like to debate, then please notice how I gave my reasoning for opposition to be harm sustained by individuals and society. This suggests that I might be able to make an argument based on the "harm principal".

IMO your attempts to label my argument as mere opinion demonstrates a fundamental lack of interest in the very nature of DebatePolitics existence.
 
Last edited:
All those things only prevent voting discrimination based on race, sex, age etc.

There is no Federal right to vote, it does not exist.

Did you miss this?

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." - 19th Amendment

That is just one.
 
Did you miss this?

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." - 19th Amendment

That is just one.

Note it does not say "marital status" ;)
 
Did you miss this?

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." - 19th Amendment

That is just one.

Yes, it explicitly says that you can not be denied based on sex.
I doesn't say anywhere that you can not be denied.

Jessie Jackson Jr. seems to be confused then, he has proposed an amendment for this very thing.

The Right to Vote
 
All those things only prevent voting discrimination based on race, sex, age etc.

There is no Federal right to vote, it does not exist.

Read the bolded part from the 14th Amendment again:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such

Without a right to vote, states get no representation. Once they give out the right to vote, they cannot discriminate on various bases. It's not a direct federal right in that the Constitution says "there is a federal right to vote," but its drafted in such a way that it's essentially automatic.
 
Yes, it explicitly says that you can not be denied based on sex.
I doesn't say anywhere that you can not be denied.

Jessie Jackson Jr. seems to be confused then, he has proposed an amendment for this very thing.

The Right to Vote

And he is an idiot, so what? :mrgreen:
 
Read the bolded part from the 14th Amendment again:



Without a right to vote, states get no representation. Once they give out the right to vote, they cannot discriminate on various bases. It's not a direct federal right in that the Constitution says "there is a federal right to vote," but its drafted in such a way that it's essentially automatic.

I understand that but still doesn't exist.

A state could, in theory, not want representation and deny voting privileges.
 
Where in the forum rules is flaming allowed so long as you think poorly of someone's point of view?

I'm not saying that your asinine comments justify those actions, but I'm saying that you shouldn't act all surprised when people act like that in response to such ridiculous claims.

You have judged an entire class of people simply because you don't like the way they vote. I'm perplexed as to what you think makes you more worthy of voting than people like rivrrrat/thegirlnextdoor, etc. Your attempts to couch it in "oh, but they cost more money" are similarly embarrassing - I'm sure there are plenty of single women who pay much more to the state's coffers than you or I.
 
I understand that but still doesn't exist.

A state could, in theory, not want representation and deny voting privileges.

Each state is required to elect representatives just as each state is required to draft a Constitution.
 
I understand that but still doesn't exist.

A state could, in theory, not want representation and deny voting privileges.

And since such a thing would never happen (and would likely face some serious challenges), then for all intents and purposes, there is a federal right to vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom