Voting Rights


tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Let me start by saying I agree with you guys on many things. However, one issue I consistently see on these threads with which I disagree with you is on who should be allowed to vote. Allow me to explain.

I will acknowledge that there is no "right" to vote found in the Constitution. The Constitution, via the 15th (making it illegal to keep anyone from voting on account of race), the 19th (making it illegal to keep anyone from voting on account of sex), 23rd (paving the way for DC residents to vote in presidential elections), 24th (abolition of poll taxes) and 26th (18-year olds can't be denied on account of age) amendments, simply tells states that people can't be denied suffrage on those grounds, meaning technically, the states are free to deny suffrage on any other grounds. Typically the only groups not heretofore mentioned who have been denied suffrage "rights" are children and felons.

I regularly read on these forums from many on here that many of you believe that anyone who isn't a homeowner shouldn't be allowed to vote. I can unserstand why you'd feel that non-citizens, people who receive public aid, felons, etc shouldn't be able to vote, but people who don't own homes? Why? That would automatically eliminate people who live with their parents, college students, and people like myself who work but don't make enough money to pay a monthly mortgage. I can't speak for other renters, but I work, I pay taxes, I pay my rent and utilities on time every month, I haven't made a bunch of babies I can't afford, I don't have a criminal record, and none of my personal expenses are taxpayer-subsidized. So why do you guys feel I'm not worthy of the priviledge to vote?

By the way, I happen to believe that ALL adults (yes even felons and those receiving public aid) should be able to vote, because EVERYONE has a stake in the decisions elected officials make, even if that stake is one that working home owners don't like.
 

fuhr52

New member
You lost me on allowing felons to vote. They broke the law and have been convicted of braking the law. They have lost this privilege as well as some others, in my opinion. If they can keep their nose clean and prove to society they can behave themselves, they can regain this privilege over time. I know people make mastakes, it happens, part of human nature. Why is it progressive liberals refuse to hold people accountable? You make a mistake, you get caught involved in a crime, ok, take resposibility, do the time and move on. That's the trouble with todays society, "It's always somebody elses fault". Even our so called leaders refuse to take resposibility for their actions. Just my opinion.:pleasantry:
 

cmhbob

Sig fault.
Many felons recover their suffrage after they're released from prison, and that's as it should be.

I've heard similar suggestions about homeowners voting, usually when it comes to property tax levies. The suggestion is that you shouldn't have any say in voting in a tax that you won't have to pay. I actually don't have a problem with that idea, if you could easily restrict voting on such issues.

I've already stated my position on restricting suffrage due to receiving public aid.

I think the biggest problem these days is people feeling their vote doesn't matter.
 

cawpin

New member
I agree that non-homeowners should be able to vote. I've never seen it suggested, on this forums or otherwise, that they shouldn't. I very well could've just missed it. That is just an asinine idea.

However, I do disagree that felons should be allowed to vote. There must be some consequence to committing violent crimes, which brings up another point. A felony should be taken back toward its original meaning, a violent crime or one that endangers innocent people. There are far too many things that are felonies that shouldn't be and many that aren't that should be.
 

BC1

,
Let me start by saying I agree with you guys on many things. However, one issue I consistently see on these threads with which I disagree with you is on who should be allowed to vote. Allow me to explain.

I will acknowledge that there is no "right" to vote found in the Constitution. The Constitution, via the 15th (making it illegal to keep anyone from voting on account of race), the 19th (making it illegal to keep anyone from voting on account of sex), 23rd (paving the way for DC residents to vote in presidential elections), 24th (abolition of poll taxes) and 26th (18-year olds can't be denied on account of age) amendments, simply tells states that people can't be denied suffrage on those grounds, meaning technically, the states are free to deny suffrage on any other grounds. Typically the only groups not heretofore mentioned who have been denied suffrage "rights" are children and felons.

I regularly read on these forums from many on here that many of you believe that anyone who isn't a homeowner shouldn't be allowed to vote. I can unserstand why you'd feel that non-citizens, people who receive public aid, felons, etc shouldn't be able to vote, but people who don't own homes? Why? That would automatically eliminate people who live with their parents, college students, and people like myself who work but don't make enough money to pay a monthly mortgage. I can't speak for other renters, but I work, I pay taxes, I pay my rent and utilities on time every month, I haven't made a bunch of babies I can't afford, I don't have a criminal record, and none of my personal expenses are taxpayer-subsidized. So why do you guys feel I'm not worthy of the priviledge to vote?

By the way, I happen to believe that ALL adults (yes even felons and those receiving public aid) should be able to vote, because EVERYONE has a stake in the decisions elected officials make, even if that stake is one that working home owners don't like.
Agree on everything but the felon part. People must understand, before they commit the crime, that doing so will result in a loss of this right. Therefor the right wasn't wrongfully stripped but instead they made the decision not to vote.
 

TooCalm

New member
All US citizens 18 and older should be able to vote with out any restrictions what so ever. As for Felons, once they have served their time all of their constitutional rights should be fully restored.
 

cmhbob

Sig fault.
You guys are suggesting that felons never be allowed to vote again? How can you justify that? You want them to become functioning and contributing members of society, but you won't let them vote?

AFAIC, once they're out of prison, and off of post-release control, all rights should be restored. Why just restrict the right to vote, and the right to an effective means of self-defense? Should any other rights be restricted?
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
TooCalm:221519 said:
All US citizens 18 and older should be able to vote with out any restrictions what so ever. As for Felons, once they have served their time all of their constitutional rights should be fully restored.

I apparently gave the impression that I was in favor of giving felons the right to vote while they are incarcerated. I am not. When they are released, as far as I'm concerned, they have paid their debt to society and, as long as they don't go back to their old ways, they shouldn't be treated any worse than the law abiding.
 
In agreement with most; felons should get their rights back after they've served their time. Otherwise, we permanently brand them to the point where crime will CONTINUE to be more appealing than being productive.

I have the same opinion of the "sex offender" label. That label can get applied for fairly minor things - like two consenting 15 year olds having sex; if we are going to say we're punishing someone for life, stick 'em in jail the whole time. Or at least insist that they be on probation for a long time upon release, meaning they're still technically being punished. But if you're claiming their punishment is over, it needs to be over.

As for only homeowners getting a say in property taxes; that diminishes people who pay property taxes indirectly. Even if you're renting, you're paying property taxes. You're just paying it through one single person (the owner.) So if one person owns 10 homes and rents them out, that one person would only get one single vote for property taxes, when in reality there would be 10 people who would have to pay them. (If you rent out a house, and DON'T pass the taxes through, then you're being disingenuous. When I rented out my 'bachelor pad' after my now-wife and I moved in to a new house together, I made it clear in the contract that rent would change every year based on the new year's property taxes.)
 

disneyr

New member
Homeowners? How many people in the U.S. actually own there homes? By far most supposed "Homeowners" are living in homes that are in fact owned by a bank or credit union to whom they pay monthly mortgage "rent" to live there. As many people have found out in the last few years, even paying extra principal payments to try to pay off a mortgage faster does not result in any benefit with the bank when one is no longer able to make payments. Just because one is a renter should not preclude them from voting. Those on "The Dole" however are another matter.

The root word of mortgage is "mort" as in "until death".
 

localgirl

New member
Homeowners? How many people in the U.S. actually own there homes? By far most supposed "Homeowners" are living in homes that are in fact owned by a bank or credit union to whom they pay monthly mortgage "rent" to live there. As many people have found out in the last few years, even paying extra principal payments to try to pay off a mortgage faster does not result in any benefit with the bank when one is no longer able to make payments. Just because one is a renter should not preclude them from voting. Those on "The Dole" however are another matter.


The root word of mortgage is "mort" as in "until death".



Ooooh! Etymology! Like.
 

buddy

New member
I too have heard that people who rent should not be able to vote. Which makes no sense. Living in NV, there are so many people I know who are landlords and their tenants all pay the property taxes. Unless your landlord is a dunce, every renter does. Even apt dwellers.
But guess who deducts the property taxes?
People on government assistance I can agree should not be able to vote. Felons I am ok with, unless the felony was related to voter fraud, of course :)
 

TooCalm

New member
Homeowners? How many people in the U.S. actually own there homes? By far most supposed "Homeowners" are living in homes that are in fact owned by a bank or credit union to whom they pay monthly mortgage "rent" to live there. As many people have found out in the last few years, even paying extra principal payments to try to pay off a mortgage faster does not result in any benefit with the bank when one is no longer able to make payments. Just because one is a renter should not preclude them from voting. Those on "The Dole" however are another matter.




The root word of mortgage is "mort" as in "until death".

disneyr I never earned enough money to qualify for a home loan so I figured that the only way that I could ever own a home was to build it myself with Cash Money. It took me 11 years 2 months to build my home. It was worth the wait.
In NC a citizen does not have to be a licensed building contractor to build their own home, but you do have to pass the building inspections and you have to live in the home for at least one year before the home can be sold. That is not a problem for me. I built it to live in.
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
There's not being permitted to vote at all, and then there's not being permitted to vote only on certain issues. I agree that people who rent should not be prohibitted from voting generally, but as a renter, they are not tied to the land. They are free to back up a truck, load all their earthly possessions into it, and drive away never to be seen again. The landlord, on the other hand, has all of the responsibilities of maintenance, taxes, and code compliance crap related to the rented domicile. Their renters have the opportunity to set and agree to the terms of their relationship to the property in the lease agreement. They should not be permitted to do so further in the voting booth.

Specificly, I am thinking in terms of referenda regarding property tax issues, code issues, and similar. Now, granted, if a candidate for public office vows to pass laws to increase property taxes, then renters would be free to vote for that candidate, and generally outnumbering property owners, would likely win, which is why I would also like to see a Constitutional regulation requiring any tax increase go before the public as a referendum, in which, as stated, only property owners affected directly by same would be permitted to vote on said referendum.

I'll just echo what seems to be the general sentiment that criminals, whether misdemeanors or felonies, from the moment they are convicted to the moment they are released from prison unconditionally, or from parole, or from whatever pre-trial diversion or probationary program they are sentenced to, or to the moment they pay off any and all fines and fees associated with the crime, they should not enjoy the power to have their vote affect the government of the society to which they have exhibitted a propensity to be detrimental. Immediately after that time, they have paid back their debt to society, whether it's a parking ticket, or a 25 year sentence for murder. They get their voting rights back. If you disagree with this, then you agree that they need to be punished more harshly and they need to be fined more heavily or imprisonned for longer, etc.

Now, this is where I'm likely to diverge quite a bit from the consensus. I would also deny the vote to anyone who has applied for and been granted and tallied benefits for any welfare or entitlement program, bar none. This would include any and all federal or state subsidy programs. If you are a CEO of a corporate farm that receives one red cent of otherwise free federal monies whatsoever, YOU, personally, do not get to vote in the next federal general election, OR partisan primary election. If you get unemployment, you can't vote in the next election. If you receive disability, TANF, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, any government giveaways other than those in your paycheck as an employee (and that's begrudgingly) or as a tax deduction or write-off, that disqualifies you to vote in the coming election, whether that's a mid-term or a presidential election doesn't matter.

Now, this is strictly at the federal level, I'm talking about. If a given state wants to use the same criteria to disable aid recipients from voting in state, county, city, local, etc. elections as well, until after a given election date, mazel tov! If, the person so disabled from voting due to receiving of the government largesse ceases to qualify, ceases to receive payments, ceases to tally benefits prior to the close of the polls and, until such time as they again do so, THEN they regain the franchise for that period of time.

This only seems rational to me. If the people want to get free $#!& from the government, then you don't get a say in how much or whether the program continues. If you want a say in government spending and other societal decisions, then stay off the public dole. Simple as that.
 

cmhbob

Sig fault.
Cathy, you have little actual control over your employment. I got laid off when my last employer cut 150 jobs. I've been looking for 2 years, but there's this here recession/depression thing going on, and there's not many jobs out there. Maybe you missed that part.

So who loses their suffrage if I draw unemployment? Me? My wife, too? And adult children living at home? What if they're working at minimum eager jobs that won't quite support us, and we end up on food stamps? Hell, what if me and my wife are both working part-time minimum wage jobs, and still can't make ends meet, and get federal assistance? You're still going to deny me the right to vote? That's wrong on so many levels, it's scary.

Y'all say liberals are looney? Look in the mirror, folks.
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
Ummm. Yeah. Consider it additional incentive to get back on your feet. You don't have to work for a corp to be earning your own money and be off of the public dole. You can start your own business or just work odd jobs under the table. My only issue is public assistance. The details of why are irrelevant. Whether you're a good person who just fell on temporary hard times or a bad person sucking the system dry, public dole should deprive you of your rights to vote in the next election.
 

cmhbob

Sig fault.
Did you miss the part about looking for work for 2 years? I couldn't even get hired at a Walmart warehouse for seasonal work last Christmas.

And where am I supposed to get the money to start this business? I could get a federally guaranteed loan, but you probably wouldn't let me vote till it was paid off.

So answer my questions. Does my wife lose her right to vote if I'm receiving unemployment?

Are you including social security payments in "public dole?"

What about government employees? That's public money too. They should probably lose their right to vote too, since they'll just vote for people who will help them keep their jobs. No conflict of interest there.

You are willing to give control of your vote to your employer. That's f***img amazing.
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
I said that I exempted the salaries of federal employees, but only begrudgingly. Though, if you want to include anyone getting paid money directly from the federal government that does not have to be paid back and is not a tax refund, it would not break my heart any. Federal employees already get twice the salary and benefits of their private sector direct equivalents. If the consequence of that flavour of largesse were loss of franchise, so be it.

If you have a federal loan that you have to pay back, then no, that would not be disqualifying. If you have a federal loan that you have reneged on, then that would conceivably disqualify one for life, since it would mean you gained a benefit by deceit and no longer had any capability to repay it.

As for your question about your wife, that would depend. If your state uses household income to calculate your unemployment eligibility/benefit level, then yes, because it would mean that if she were gainfully employed, then you would not need the public dole. If your unemployment benefits were calculated exclusively on the basis of your employment history only and her employment or unemployment did not affect the decision in any way, then no, she would still retain her vote, since her benefit from your being on the public dole would be indirect.

And yes, as I said, SSI would disqualify you from the franchise. Ditto Medicare and Medicaid, as I stated unambiguously. This is because such systems are not the lock box of Al Gore fame. They are Ponzi/Madeoff Schemes, robbing from the future to pay benefits in the present. If they were the lockboxes they were originally designed to be, where you only got back what you put in, then no. That would not be the public dole. That would be you getting back your own money, not someone else's.

I never said I was willing to give control of my vote to an employer. It's not predicated on whether or not you are gainfully employed. It should be predicated upon whether or not, in the immediately previous election cycle, you lived off the employment of others who paid the taxes for the public assistance you received.
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
I would submit, first and foremost, as any financial endeavour with any hope of success, all overhead must be passed on, or else the endeavour is doomed from the start. Any business that accepts taxation without passing said taxation on to their customers and ultimately to the end users, is not "maximizing shareholder value". to allow taxes to come straight out of profits is impermissible. If not passed on, it would have to instead be taken out of salaries of employees fired or not hired.

No corporation not doomed to go out of business pays any taxes. All corporate taxes are passed on to the individual beneficiary of the corporations products and services is the corporation is not to go out of business. To claim otherwise is... disingenuous.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,605
Members
74,269
Latest member
NearshoreRnD
Top