Would you vote for the compromise?

haymarket said:

Well the US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

One man, one vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reynolds v. Sims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Children and felons do not have the right to vote so SCOTUS can disagree with me all they want. The reality is that one man-one vote doesn't currently exist.

There is no discrimination against children as the vote is something that has always been set aside in our nation for adults. For you to keep bringing up that point is simply silly and pointless. As for felons, some states make the determination that when a person is convicted in a court of law of committing a serious crime against their fellow citizens , they forfeit the vote. Personally, I believe that once you pay your debt to society, you should be able to vote again. But that is neither here not there. The fact is that the people you want to disenfranchise have not been convicted of anything or committed any crime or offense against the people of this land. They are good and decent people who are members of their community but you simply want to stack the deck in favor of the Republicans so you support this bogus idea to strip the franchise from tens of millions of decent citizens.

But since you support this, lets see how it would work. Please answer these questions bout the scheme you support

Just what it is the exact definition of a "net taxpayer"?
How is it measured?
When is it measured?
For what period of time are we measuring?
Which taxes are we considering and why?
Which taxes are we not considering and why not?
Are all levels of government considered?
Can you bounce back and forth between classifications of being a "net taxpayer" and not being one?
How often can you bounce back and forth?
Who will make this determination?
Is there an appeals process?
Is it regularly reviewed?
Is it a violation of the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment?
Is it a violation of the 24th Amendment?
How many people would be stripped of the right to vote at any given time?
Could they still vote in purely local elections?
How would you manage such a system?

if you get more $$$ in govt entitlements than you pay in taxes you shouldn't get to vote. voting should be earned, not a "right" given. maybe if more people actually had to earn the right to vote, they'd take it more seriously.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Click to expand...

The one who is unwilling to work shall not vote

OscarB63 said:

if you get more $$$ in govt entitlements than you pay in taxes you shouldn't get to vote. voting should be earned, not a "right" given. maybe if more people actually had to earn the right to vote, they'd take it more seriously.



The one who is unwilling to work shall not vote

Click to expand...

As far as your quote from the Bible, the last time I looked, the USA was not governed by any sort of religious law. I think some state out West passed a law recently to make sure that would not happen.

But since you support this idea Oscar, can you tell me just how this would work?

Just what it is the exact definition of a "net taxpayer"?
How is it measured?
When is it measured?
For what period of time are we measuring?
Which taxes are we considering and why?
Which taxes are we not considering and why not?
Are all levels of government considered?
Can you bounce back and forth between classifications of being a "net taxpayer" and not being one?
How often can you bounce back and forth?
Who will make this determination?
Is there an appeals process?
Is it regularly reviewed?
Is it a violation of the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment?
Is it a violation of the 24th Amendment?
How many people would be stripped of the right to vote at any given time?
Could they still vote in purely local elections?
How would you manage such a system?

OscarB63 said:

if you get more $$$ in govt entitlements than you pay in taxes you shouldn't get to vote. voting should be earned, not a "right" given. maybe if more people actually had to earn the right to vote, they'd take it more seriously.

Click to expand...

Ah -- so you want to create a truly enormous government bureaucracy to keep track of people's lives in such a way as to calculate their sales tax, gas tax, excise tax, payroll taxes and myriad other taxes and then compare such to the benefits they receive via "entitlements".

That would sure put millions to work!

OscarB63 said:

if you get more $$$ in govt entitlements than you pay in taxes you shouldn't get to vote. voting should be earned, not a "right" given. maybe if more people actually had to earn the right to vote, they'd take it more seriously.



The one who is unwilling to work shall not vote

Click to expand...

Well in that case then why not expand upon that? Maybe people should "earn" the right to speak their opinions? Or maybe people should earn the right to speak on anything religion, after all if you don't study the bible in depth then you don't know anything about it right? Maybe people should earn the right to own guns also. Maybe people should earn the right to privacy also.

You take away one right then you open the door to take other rights away.

So it looks like that the main disagreement in this thread is what people see as what constitutions a contribution to society. I think this is an honest disagreement and no purpose is being service by calling those who disagree dishonest.

Personally, I see voting as a fundamental human right for any country with democratic institutions. So there is no reason to even bring up contribution (no matter what a person thinks the contribution is). This is something that should automatically be given to all adults and I don't even think felons should lose it, but I can see where the case can be made to since they lose other rights.

While this is not detailed in the constitution or what the founding fathers envisioned, I am not of the opinion that they got everything right or that their views are really that important any more as society has progressed since the founding.

Kal'Stang said:

Well in that case then why not expand upon that? Maybe people should "earn" the right to speak their opinions? Or maybe people should earn the right to speak on anything religion, after all if you don't study the bible in depth then you don't know anything about it right? Maybe people should earn the right to own guns also. Maybe people should earn the right to privacy also.

You take away one right then you open the door to take other rights away.

Click to expand...

and when everything is a "right", none of your rights are worth a damn.

people shouldn't have to earn the right to express their opinion, but just like on boards such as this, they should have to earn the right for others to take their opinion seriously

people already have to earn the right to own guns, that's why they require waiting periods and background checks

haymarket said:

As far as your quote from the Bible, the last time I looked, the USA was not governed by any sort of religious law.

Click to expand...

and the last time I recited it, the Pledge of Allegiance said "one nation under God"

But since you support this idea Oscar, can you tell me just how this would work?

Click to expand...

never said I support "this idea" I just don't think someone who is a freeloader should get to help determine how much everyone else has to pay to support their freeloading.

OscarB63 said:

and the last time I recited it, the Pledge of Allegiance said "one nation under God"



never said I support "this idea" I just don't think someone who is a freeloader should get to help determine how much everyone else has to pay to support their freeloading.

Click to expand...

The Pledge of Allegiance?!?!?! You mean that socialist piece of statism?!?!?!?!?

btw - the "under God" part was added a half century after it was written.

haymarket said:

The Pledge of Allegiance?!?!?! You mean that socialist piece of statism?!?!?!?!?

Click to expand...

Yeah, the same one local, state and Federal governments still recite themselves here in the U.S.

haymarket said:

btw - the "under God" part was added a half century after it was written.

Click to expand...

And ... ? Are you inferring all change is bad or just wording changes about God you don't agree with?

haymarket said:

The Pledge of Allegiance?!?!?! You mean that socialist piece of statism?!?!?!?!?

btw - the "under God" part was added a half century after it was written.

Click to expand...

and???????

OscarB63 said:

and???????

Click to expand...

and ...

it means nothing to a discussion of stripping tens of millions of American citizens of their right to vote.

haymarket said:

There is no discrimination against children as the vote is something that has always been set aside in our nation for adults. For you to keep bringing up that point is simply silly and pointless. As for felons, some states make the determination that when a person is convicted in a court of law of committing a serious crime against their fellow citizens , they forfeit the vote. Personally, I believe that once you pay your debt to society, you should be able to vote again. But that is neither here not there. The fact is that the people you want to disenfranchise have not been convicted of anything or committed any crime or offense against the people of this land. They are good and decent people who are members of their community but you simply want to stack the deck in favor of the Republicans so you support this bogus idea to strip the franchise from tens of millions of decent citizens.

Click to expand...

And nothing here removes that we have current limitations on voting therefore negating the one man one vote concept.

hallam said:

And nothing here removes that we have current limitations on voting therefore negating the one man one vote concept.

Click to expand...

You want to translate that for me please as it makes no sense to me.

The Supreme Court of the USA says that the one man one vote principle guides them. You claim it does not exist. I feel like the Beaver in that old sitcom... "gee whiz Wally, do I believe Eddy Haskel or do I believe the US Supreme Court when they talk about the law?"

The fact that your own particular self imposed set of ideological beliefs does not accept one many one vote does absolutely nothing to negate it as an accepted legal principle accepted by the US Supreme Court. The last time I looked, their opinion on this issue counted for something. Yours on the other hand, is just yours.

haymarket said:

You want to translate that for me please as it makes no sense to me.

The Supreme Court of the USA says that the one man one vote principle guides them. You claim it does not exist. I feel like the Beaver in that old sitcom... "gee whiz Wally, do I believe Eddy Haskel or do I believe the US Supreme Court when they talk about the law?"

The fact that your own particular self imposed set of ideological beliefs does not accept one many one vote does absolutely nothing to negate it as an accepted legal principle accepted by the US Supreme Court. The last time I looked, their opinion on this issue counted for something. Yours on the other hand, is just yours.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS can say that but, until they remove the age restrictions and the felon restrictions, they are talking out their asses. I am sorry but kids and felons are citizens too. A person's citizenship isn't removed by going into a jail or by not being 18 years old. These are restrictions on voting and arbitrary restrictions at that. So as long as these restrictions exist SCOTUS just isn't adding the caveats to their statements. Those caveats, those restrictions still exist.

valid point.

here's a question for you one man/one vote people

why does some dirtbag welfare bum deserve the "right" to vote but a 17 year old kid who is working a full time job to help support his/her family does not?

why does willy the wino get the right to vote but 17 y/o PFC Joe Snuffy fighting in Afghanistan doesn't?

What you are attempting to do is to take something which is not part of the equation in any way, shape or form - children - and use it to validate your idea that we can restrict the right to vote in adults. Sorry, it does not make sense in any way since voting is an adult function in our society.

Again, you fail to understand the difference between your opinion and the opinion of the Supreme Court of the USA. Your opinion is only your opinion and no force of law on anyone in any way in any shape or form. The Supreme Court issues an opinion and it has the force of law behind it. You can talk with all the cerebral brain power you can muster and you might be a genius but the opinion that results is still impotent and worthless as far as making it more than just your opinion. And if your comparison is correct, and the SC is indeed talking of of their asses, the product which comes out has the force of law upon the nation.

In other words - and let me say this both as bluntly and as politely as possible: on the subject of one person one vote and the rights of American citizens to vote in this country- your opinion compared to the opinion of the Supreme Court means nothing.

OscarB63 said:

valid point.

here's a question for you one man/one vote people

why does some dirtbag welfare bum deserve the "right" to vote but a 17 year old kid who is working a full time job to help support his/her family does not?

why does willy the wino get the right to vote but 17 y/o PFC Joe Snuffy fighting in Afghanistan doesn't?

Click to expand...

Because we as a people in a nation operating as a democratic republic have made that collective decision.

haymarket said:

Because we as a people in a nation operating as a democratic republic have made that collective decision.

Click to expand...

so, by your own logic, if we as a people in a nation operating as a democratic republic decided that you had to earn the right to vote by paying taxes or serving in the military or some other means you would support that decision.

thanks for clearing that up... the people have spoken.


funny how that arguement didn't hold any water when the people of Califiornia voted against gay marriage.

OscarB63 said:

so, by your own logic, if we as a people in a nation operating as a democratic republic decided that you had to earn the right to vote by paying taxes or serving in the military or some other means you would support that decision.

thanks for clearing that up... the people have spoken.


funny how that arguement didn't hold any water when the people of Califiornia voted against gay marriage.

Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing my "logic" as you call it with the way that the government of the USA operates.

haymarket said:

You seem to be confusing my "logic" as you call it with the way that the government of the USA operates.

Click to expand...

in other words, you think the system should only be applied to situations you agree with.

the people in CA voted. should gays just throw up their hands and say "that's the way the system works"

funny that you care more about the rights of some dirtbag than you do a productive member of society, simply because the current system says you should.

haymarket said:

What you are attempting to do is to take something which is not part of the equation in any way, shape or form - children - and use it to validate your idea that we can restrict the right to vote in adults. Sorry, it does not make sense in any way since voting is an adult function in our society.

Again, you fail to understand the difference between your opinion and the opinion of the Supreme Court of the USA. Your opinion is only your opinion and no force of law on anyone in any way in any shape or form. The Supreme Court issues an opinion and it has the force of law behind it. You can talk with all the cerebral brain power you can muster and you might be a genius but the opinion that results is still impotent and worthless as far as making it more than just your opinion. And if your comparison is correct, and the SC is indeed talking of of their asses, the product which comes out has the force of law upon the nation.

In other words - and let me say this both as bluntly and as politely as possible: on the subject of one person one vote and the rights of American citizens to vote in this country- your opinion compared to the opinion of the Supreme Court means nothing.

Click to expand...

You still seem to think this is my opinion. SCOTUS acknowledges that there are restrictions because they have not invalidated them yet. So my "opinion" is just reality.

in other words, you think the system should only be applied to situations you agree with.

Click to expand...

where did I say that? You asked a question as to why voting was the way it was and I explained it to you.

hallam said:

You still seem to think this is my opinion. SCOTUS acknowledges that there are restrictions because they have not invalidated them yet. So my "opinion" is just reality.

Click to expand...

and what is the "opinion" you cling to? That children cannot partake in an adult function? That states have the right to bar convicted felons from voting? If that is your opinion that indeed is reality.

If it is further your "opinion" that those two things are somehow connected or can be used as justification in a blatant politically inspired scheme to disenfranchise tens of millions of people from voting, that is not reality, it is fantasy.

But by all means, go full throttle and pursue your "reality". Announce your intention to pass a Constitutional Amendment doing just what you fantasize about. Convince the legislatures of 3/4 of our states that you have a good idea because we already don't let babies vote so it must be all right. Come back from time to time with an update on your progress. That is some reality I would be interested in.