• 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
I would argue that as voting is a right, and one has to fulfill the criteria to qualify for a right, that committing a felony disqualifies one from that right.

"If you aren't willing to follow the law, you can't claim the right to make the law for everyone else." Obviously We The People don't take that as an absolute rule, much like the exception of childless couples to marry even though the purpose of marriage is to have a family. We allow reasonable exceptions to the rule, such as committing misdemeanors. Also, I would argue that only fraud or violent felonies should warrant the removal of the right to vote.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't think it should be a right.

For me to change my mind, everyone would have to vote ethically.
Click to expand...

So it's not about what is ethically or philosophically right here, it's about trying to game the system to get your agenda though, since so few Americans support it. Classy.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Here you guys go.

“if the courts can consider any question settled, it is this one. … The Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage”

Minor v. Happersett: Information from Answers.com

It says later (1964) that this interpretation was abandoned but as it is, there is no absolute right to vote.
Click to expand...

Now if in another thread, let's say I bring up Roe v. Wade, or that case on the commerce clause where the courts ruled that home grown wheat competes with wheat in commerce, Wickard v. Filburn, you would argue that those cases were wrongly decided and thus shouldn't settle the argument. Am I right?
 
I think net tax-consumers shouldn't be allowed to vote. No one has the "right" vote themselves into other people's wallets.
 
It is a socially-granted right, but like all rights it can be taken away under particular circumstances. Minors, as already mentioned, do not have the right to vote, although I'm not sure about emancipated minors. Felons lose their right to vote as a consequence of their illegal actions. I'm sure there are other examples as well.
 
Ethereal said:
I think net tax-consumers shouldn't be allowed to vote. No one has the "right" vote themselves into other people's wallets.
Click to expand...

  1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
  2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
  3. From courage to liberty;
  4. From liberty to abundance;
  5. From abundance to selfishness;
  6. From selfishness to complacency;
  7. From complacency to apathy;
  8. From apathy to dependency;
  9. From dependency back again to bondage.
 
the makeout hobo said:
So it's not about what is ethically or philosophically right here, it's about trying to game the system to get your agenda though, since so few Americans support it. Classy.
Click to expand...

That is not at all what I said, your putting words into my mouth.
Wanting people to vote ethically is not the same thing as gaming to put my agenda through.

In fact I'm trying to stop all the people now, who game the system to get their agenda through but not necessarily get my beliefs through, except the ethics portion.

How is it classy that people game the system now?
Is it that you'd rather have the devil you know?

the makeout hobo said:
Now if in another thread, let's say I bring up Roe v. Wade, or that case on the commerce clause where the courts ruled that home grown wheat competes with wheat in commerce, Wickard v. Filburn, you would argue that those cases were wrongly decided and thus shouldn't settle the argument. Am I right?
Click to expand...

Home grown wheat does compete with wheat in commerce but if that home grown wheat is not traded between states, the federal government has no say.

Is it right to stop someone from growing wheat at home for them self?
Is it right to limit a persons choices over their body?

You know the answers to these questions already.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is not at all what I said, your putting words into my mouth.
Wanting people to vote ethically is not the same thing as gaming to put my agenda through.

In fact I'm trying to stop all the people now, who game the system to get their agenda through but not necessarily get my beliefs through, except the ethics portion.

How is it classy that people game the system now?
Is it that you'd rather have the devil you know?



Home grown wheat does compete with wheat in commerce but if that home grown wheat is not traded between states, the federal government has no say.

Is it right to stop someone from growing wheat at home for them self?
Is it right to limit a persons choices over their body?

You know the answers to these questions already.
Click to expand...

Voting for candidates who support the policies you approve of and who support your agenda is not "gaming the system", it is the system.
 
Redress said:
Voting for candidates who support the policies you approve of and who support your agenda is not "gaming the system", it is the system.
Click to expand...

Hobo suggested I wanted to "game the system" with requiring ethical voting.
Then he attached his moral outrage at me wanting to "game the system."

People should be voting for what is right and not what they want.
A lot of times these things diverge.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Hobo suggested I wanted to "game the system" with requiring ethical voting.
Then he attached his moral outrage at me wanting to "game the system."

People should be voting for what is right and not what they want.
A lot of times these things diverge.
Click to expand...

People should vote for the candidate they feel best represents them. People should vote on issues based on whether they support that issue. Just because you don't like the issues or the candidates is not a good reason to tell people they cannot vote.

Elitism sucks.
 
Redress said:
People should vote for the candidate they feel best represents them. People should vote on issues based on whether they support that issue. Just because you don't like the issues or the candidates is not a good reason to tell people they cannot vote.

Elitism sucks.
Click to expand...

It is not elitism.
To suggest it, shows your lack of understanding of the point of ethics.

It is right and wrong, not "I want because I like it."

If your support of an issue is not based in fact, what is your support worth?
Why do we even debate issues if it's just because "I support it?"
 
Voting is a right, but it's a right restricted to US citizens. There's nothing wrong with excluding certain people from that definition; foreign nationals or felons, for instance. I think we should narrow the criteria of US citizenship so that people who depend on societal largess shouldn't be allowed to further extort society. They're being given benefits that other citizens are not entitled to, which means they should have to surrender their voting rights until they repay their debt to society. It's like they have all the same rights as everyone else plus one. That's not fair, and it isn't economically sensible to let people vote themselves into the Treasury. There's a reason why we're going bankrupt...
 
Ethereal said:
Voting is a right, but it's a right restricted to US citizens. There's nothing wrong with excluding certain people from that definition; foreign nationals or felons, for instance. I think we should narrow the criteria of US citizenship so that people who depend on societal largess shouldn't be allowed to further extort society. They're being given benefits that other citizens are not entitled to, which means they should have to surrender their voting rights until they repay their debt to society. It's like they have all the same rights as everyone else plus one. That's not fair, and it isn't economically sensible to let people vote themselves into the Treasury. There's a reason why we're going bankrupt...
Click to expand...

Your an elitist for wanting things to be fair and equitable.
 
Ethereal said:
Voting is a right, but it's a right restricted to US citizens. There's nothing wrong with excluding certain people from that definition; foreign nationals or felons, for instance. I think we should narrow the criteria of US citizenship so that people who depend on societal largess shouldn't be allowed to further extort society. They're being given benefits that other citizens are not entitled to, which means they should have to surrender their voting rights until they repay their debt to society. It's like they have all the same rights as everyone else plus one. That's not fair, and it isn't economically sensible to let people vote themselves into the Treasury. There's a reason why we're going bankrupt...
Click to expand...

Exactly.
..
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It is not elitism.
To suggest it, shows your lack of understanding of the point of ethics.

It is right and wrong, not "I want because I like it."

If your support of an issue is not based in fact, what is your support worth?
Why do we even debate issues if it's just because "I support it?"
Click to expand...

You have not shown that people are supporting issues not based on the facts. You are not showing that people are being bribed and basing their votes on that. You are not making your case. It is not up to you, or I, or anybody to tell people why they should or should not support a candidate or issue. Since we all benefit from the government in some ways, you could equally well argue that the government is bribing us all.
 
Redress said:
You have not shown that people are supporting issues not based on the facts. You are not showing that people are being bribed and basing their votes on that. You are not making your case. It is not up to you, or I, or anybody to tell people why they should or should not support a candidate or issue. Since we all benefit from the government in some ways, you could equally well argue that the government is bribing us all.
Click to expand...

Depends on what kind of benefit.

Some are equally enjoyed, those are common pool resources.
Roads, military etc.
Others are not equally enjoyed, corporate welfare, social welfare etc.

How about the current health care bill?
There is a lot of factual evidence that this will not save money, it will do nothing of what it is supposed to do.
Yet people still support it, why?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Depends on what kind of benefit.

Some are equally enjoyed, those are common pool resources.
Roads, military etc.
Others are not equally enjoyed, corporate welfare, social welfare etc.

How about the current health care bill?
There is a lot of factual evidence that this will not save money, it will do nothing of what it is supposed to do.
Yet people still support it, why?
Click to expand...

You are now making arbitrary divisions. Some government support is ok, some is not, based on your criteria. The government "bribing" some one by offering them money is ok sometimes(tax breaks for instance), sometimes it is bad, and should not be allowed.

The truth is, politicians bribe every one of us, by offering to support or oppose issues that we care about. That is the American system. It works, we are the greatest country in the world as a direct result of this system. I would prefer to continue that system as opposed to what you support, which is government by the elite, chosen by the elite.
 
Redress said:
You are now making arbitrary divisions. Some government support is ok, some is not, based on your criteria. The government "bribing" some one by offering them money is ok sometimes(tax breaks for instance), sometimes it is bad, and should not be allowed.
Click to expand...

That is not true at all.

Even judges who are held to high ethical standards support the taxes that go to the court house.
There is a stark difference between common pool resources and programs designed to benefit a few.

Redress said:
The truth is, politicians bribe every one of us, by offering to support or oppose issues that we care about. That is the American system. It works, we are the greatest country in the world as a direct result of this system. I would prefer to continue that system as opposed to what you support, which is government by the elite, chosen by the elite.
Click to expand...

Again you fail with your pretentious attempt to paint me as an elitist.

What I propose has nothing to do with elitism.
Ethics ≠ elitism

We are the most prosperous economy because we had lots of raw materials.
We are no better politically than any other country who has some form of democratic representation.

What your talking about is romanticism.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is not true at all.

Even judges who are held to high ethical standards support the taxes that go to the court house.
There is a stark difference between common pool resources and programs designed to benefit a few.
Click to expand...

And this is an arbitrary distinction. Every one gets support from the government, you just approve of some, disapprove of others, and want to punish those who get support you do not like.

Again you fail with your pretentious attempt to paint me as an elitist.

What I propose has nothing to do with elitism.
Ethics ≠ elitism

We are the most prosperous economy because we had lots of raw materials.
We are no better politically than any other country who has some form of democratic representation.

What your talking about is romanticism.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with making an arbitrary determination on who should get to vote. You want only those elite people who can pass political muster with you to vote. That is not some "ethical" stand.

There are other countries with larger supplies of raw materials that are not nearly the country we are.
 
Redress said:
And this is an arbitrary distinction. Every one gets support from the government, you just approve of some, disapprove of others, and want to punish those who get support you do not like.
Click to expand...

If that were true I wouldn't be arguing from the standpoint of common pool resources and specific benefit programs.
That would make it arbitrary.

Redress said:
This has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with making an arbitrary determination on who should get to vote. You want only those elite people who can pass political muster with you to vote. That is not some "ethical" stand.
Click to expand...

Really, so are judges and juries political elite?

Where does your definition of "political elite" start and end?


Redress said:
There are other countries with larger supplies of raw materials that are not nearly the country we are.
Click to expand...

So stage of development = greatness?
 
OxymoronP said:
We deny voting based on age.

Originally it was only given to white land owning men.

So in that regard there is nothing in the constitution that provides a clear statement to this.
Click to expand...
I believe that the 10th Amendment will point you toward where the answer lies. ;)
 
the makeout hobo said:
I've seen various people on this site claim that people on governmental aid shouldn't be allowed to vote. Now my thought is that voting is a fundamental right, as we live in a democratic republic. Voting is what makes this a democratic form of government (can we please not quibble over semantics), as opposed to some sort of oligarchy, and as thus shouldn't be taken away without due process. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
It depends.
There is no right to vote for President, as your state grants you the prvilege to help determine the disposition of its electors. It need not do so.
 
It's a right.

But not everyone is privileged to have said right.

As with all rights, certain actions result in removal of such.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is not at all what I said, your putting words into my mouth.
Wanting people to vote ethically is not the same thing as gaming to put my agenda through.
Click to expand...
The thing about ethics is, everyone has a different idea about what exactly counts as ethics. My ethical beliefs revolve heavily around the concept of not doing harm to others without their consent, while a devout Christian's would be radically different. The most fair way to decide which ethics should be used in running a country is to put issues to a vote, majority rule, while having certain safeguards for minority beliefs.

In fact I'm trying to stop all the people now, who game the system to get their agenda through but not necessarily get my beliefs through, except the ethics portion.
Click to expand...
Apparently voting is now gaming the system. I'll keep that in mind.

How is it classy that people game the system now?
Is it that you'd rather have the devil you know?
Click to expand...
It's not gaming the system. In our current system everyone that is over 18 who hasn't had rights removed by a court can vote. Everyone. That allows the most citizen involvement in the system- EVERYONE vs. a select few. That is the opposite of gaming the system unless you don't believe in democracy as a legitimate governing tool.



Home grown wheat does compete with wheat in commerce but if that home grown wheat is not traded between states, the federal government has no say.

Is it right to stop someone from growing wheat at home for them self?
Is it right to limit a persons choices over their body?

You know the answers to these questions already.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The point is that you disagree with those court cases, so therefore you likely believe them illegitimate and not what the constitution actually means. Yet on this issue you trumpet the Court's decision. Apparently you give heed to the Supreme Court when it's convenient for you.
 
Ethereal said:
Voting is a right, but it's a right restricted to US citizens. There's nothing wrong with excluding certain people from that definition; foreign nationals or felons, for instance. I think we should narrow the criteria of US citizenship so that people who depend on societal largess shouldn't be allowed to further extort society.
Click to expand...
Or you could get your elected representatives to repeal these programs. Give democracy a try, I've heard the founding fathers put in a good word or two about it.

[/quote]They're being given benefits that other citizens are not entitled to, which means they should have to surrender their voting rights until they repay their debt to society. It's like they have all the same rights as everyone else plus one. That's not fair, and it isn't economically sensible to let people vote themselves into the Treasury. There's a reason why we're going bankrupt...[/QUOTE]

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from filing for unemployment if you don't have a job, or welfare if your income isn't making do, or social security if you reach that age, or anything else for that matter. You could choose to get on these programs if your situations allow, you choose not to. And remember, most people on these programs were paying into them at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom