What would be the criteria for "understanding the responsibility"?
When I voted last week, a lady walked up and asked if she could vote there. She had just moved from another county and wanted to vote in the new county. She was told she had to go to the old county if she wasn't registered in the new one. She looked so confused.
I turned to my wife and said, "I don't care who she is voting for but if she doesn't understand the basics of how to vote, she clearly doesn't understand the issues and shouldn't be voting."
I went on to explain to my wife about how land owners were only allowed to vote in the past because they worried that those that didn't own land would vote on issues they had no knowledge of.
Personally I would go for a small series of and/ors. I don't really think it's a question of "responsibility", more of a "Stake in the future". I would say if you tick one of these boxes, you are allowed to vote. Have biological, or adoptive children(legally dependents), own a business (said business would be your main form of income), own land (This land would be worth atleast 1/4 of the middle class tax bracket's income to represent a significant amount of money), or have served in active duty(you layed down your life, you deserve a vote). Ontop of this, I would only make it mandatory for federal positions of power that you tick two of these boxes(That ways even by the "Easiest" standard you would have to own land and have children). It would be so that the average person could have more say in local and state held positions, while the more "resposible" could vote nation-wide. One caveat would be that the standard for running for these position would not change. This would result in people running that cannot vote for themselves.
Right, the poll worker is instructing her to vote in a county she's not a resident of. If she failed to register her new residence then she didn't register to vote. I mean, people do it, but you're not supposed to keep voting in your old district just because they haven't purged you yet and a poll worker instructing you to vote in those races is pretty improper.
That is why it should be reserved for those who understand responsibility.
What would be the criteria for "understanding the responsibility"?
When I voted last week, a lady walked up and asked if she could vote there. She had just moved from another county and wanted to vote in the new county. She was told she had to go to the old county if she wasn't registered in the new one. She looked so confused.
I turned to my wife and said, "I don't care who she is voting for but if she doesn't understand the basics of how to vote, she clearly doesn't understand the issues and shouldn't be voting."
I went on to explain to my wife about how land owners were only allowed to vote in the past because they worried that those that didn't own land would vote on issues they had no knowledge of.
I asked a question in the beginning of my statement.
I ended my statement with historical facts.
I never advocated for going back to only land owners, I'm asking what would be a good criteria.
honestly all we need is a voter ID.
Personally I would go for a small series of and/ors. I don't really think it's a question of "responsibility", more of a "Stake in the future". I would say if you tick one of these boxes, you are allowed to vote. Have biological, or adoptive children(legally dependents), own a business (said business would be your main form of income), own land (This land would be worth atleast 1/4 of the middle class tax bracket's income to represent a significant amount of money), or have served in active duty(you layed down your life, you deserve a vote). Ontop of this, I would only make it mandatory for federal positions of power that you tick two of these boxes(That ways even by the "Easiest" standard you would have to own land and have children). It would be so that the average person could have more say in local and state held positions, while the more "resposible" could vote nation-wide. One caveat would be that the standard for running for these position would not change. This would result in people running that cannot vote for themselves.
That sounds illegal, you shouldn't be allowed to vote in a county you are no longer a resident of.
She wasn't. She didn't know the rules but the person working the polls told her she had to back to the county she was registered in.
Right, the poll worker is instructing her to vote in a county she's not a resident of. If she failed to register her new residence then she didn't register to vote. I mean, people do it, but you're not supposed to keep voting in your old district just because they haven't purged you yet and a poll worker instructing you to vote in those races is pretty improper.
Exactly! My feelings exactly!
Talk to me.
Yeah? I'll keep you in mind. We need people like you!