What restrictions should there be on voting

[DiscoRodeo]

I'm not sure how well that would work. Jimmy Carter probably has one of the highest IQs of any President and was also one of the most ineffectual Presidents, possibly even BECAUSE of that. In many situations, you want a President capable of decisive action WITHOUT spending too long thinking about it. A lot of times, it's more important that something be done immediately to maintain public confidence than that that something be the perfect thing.

Sorry, meant that the the only limitation on voting for the presidency should be an IQ test

 

[AnOminous]

Sorry, meant that the the only limitation on voting for the presidency should be an IQ test

I think the same problem occurs there. There are way too many high IQ autists.

I'd prefer something like a test on the Constitution. Not opinion shit, just pure objective knowledge of what's in it. What are the three branches of government, what are the qualifications to be President, which branch of the legislature has the power to introduce bills concerning taxes, what is the tenure of a federal judge etc.

In other words, is this drooler before us even qualified to vote on who represents them in a constitutional republic?

Obviously it won't happen and possibly shouldn't. Maybe just give everyone a baseline one vote if they aren't a felon (and haven't had the disqualification removed after reforming), and add extra votes for people who put in the effort to know the Constitution.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

I'm not sure how well that would work. Jimmy Carter probably has one of the highest IQs of any President and was also one of the most ineffectual Presidents, possibly even BECAUSE of that. In many situations, you want a President capable of decisive action WITHOUT spending too long thinking about it. A lot of times, it's more important that something be done immediately to maintain public confidence than that that something be the perfect thing.

I’d argue that Carter’s issue is that he was over educated and obsessed with control. His energy crisis was the biggest example of egomania in the White House until Obama and the “You didn’t make that” speech.

I think the same problem occurs there. There are way too many high IQ autists.

I'd prefer something like a test on the Constitution. Not opinion shit, just pure objective knowledge of what's in it. What are the three branches of government, what are the qualifications to be President, which branch of the legislature has the power to introduce bills concerning taxes, what is the tenure of a federal judge etc.

In other words, is this drooler before us even qualified to vote on who represents them in a constitutional republic?

Obviously it won't happen and possibly shouldn't. Maybe just give everyone a baseline one vote if they aren't a felon (and haven't had the disqualification removed after reforming), and add extra votes for people who put in the effort to know the Constitution.

I’d argue that a drug test would likely be a good way to get rid of people. The issue would be who decides what is a drug that excludes you. I’d want pot heads executed on the spot, so I’m a bit insane.

 

[The Gene Genie]

Landowning citizens. Anyone else simply has no real stake in the country.

 

[AnOminous]

Landowning citizens. Anyone else simply has no real stake in the country.

So a soldier who rents doesn't?

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

In my opinion, senators should only be decided by those who have invested in the system. These can be landowners, those who have served in the military, those above a certain tax bracket, or those deemed by individual states to have contributed to the state at large in a way to be defined in the future.

Congressmen/the lower house should be open to all people.

I think that issues of national security and the federal level of government should have its own checks and balances within voting as well. For this, I would argue that we shouldn't limit things to landowners, etc- but have a scheme where you do have to take a civic test of some kind. Id be lax to add any additional requirements, because I think that because of the representative nature of the presidency, every person should have the opportunity to have a say in who represents them. This is less about governance, and more about representation- the power comes from the people, and its not meant to be placed upon them from above. You just want to ensure that all have the opportunity to have a say, and that people think about who they vote into power because the people can be manipulated by demagogues.

Sounds good in theory, but then they'd do what the Bri'ish did with the House of Lords where the Lords have practically zilch power and apparently rich people can buy the right to sit in the House of Lords for life if they donate enough to a political party. The Founding Fathers set up a great system where the Senate was appointed by state legislatures, but if we wanted to fix that then we'd need to repeal the 17th Amendment AND overturn a series of bullshit cases like Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims that deny states the power to draw their own state legislative districts.

I'd also look into historic systems of weighted votes like the famous Prussian three-class franchise where people were given more votes depending on the amount of taxes they paid. If the tax threshold were set high enough, that would give a good incentive for multimillionaires to stop evading taxes and pay the same the rest of us do. Although like anything with taxes, it all comes down to the government actually reinvesting it in the country instead of funding ballroom dancing for Peruvian troons.

Even non-landowners are just as invested in the system. Everyone pays taxes. For example, someone who makes $250k in NYC that lives in an apartment pays way more in taxes than Cletus who makes $40k a year but owns a house in Alabama and is thus more invested in the system

That's true, but a lot of people get more back in taxes than they pay. Common in trailer parks and inner cities. Should they really be allowed to vote?

 

[AnOminous]

The Founding Fathers set up a great system where the Senate was appointed by state legislatures, but if we wanted to fix that then we'd need to repeal the 17th Amendment AND overturn a series of bullshit cases like Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims that deny states the power to draw their own state legislative districts.

It wasn't that great. People didn't like it at all. By the time the Seventeenth Amendment had passed, it was all but a formality in the majority of the states, which mostly forced candidates for state legislature to pledge that they'd go along with a "non-binding" popular vote. So it was increasingly just an incredibly awkward and cumbersome direct election with extra steps.

You don't get three-fourths of the states to vote to amend something that's working.

 

[The Ugly One]

Nigger that doesn't have anything to do with me lol

--------------> the point
you ->

and that for the house and presidency, they should be open for everyone, with the only criteria for the presidency being an IQ test

It really, really sucks how the South permanently poisoned the well on reasonable voting tests with their stupid fucking grandfather clause.

The South: We shouldn't let retards and ne'er-do-wells vote
Everyone else: That sounds reasonable
The South: ...unless they're white. Grandfather exception.
Everyone else: What?
The South: Also we have a special brain teaser literacy test we only give to niggers, tee hee
Everyone else: Fucking what? No, you cunts, you don't get to this. Nobody gets to this. Everyone gets to vote now. Fuck off.

And now we can't have nice things!

 

[Alex Hogendorp]

If you don't know jack shit about the country or world history, you shouldn't vote. Tons of Amerimutts had no idea about the American Revolution and the 2 World Wars yet were eligible to vote and are easily fooled by politicians false premises because they want to be pampered their entire lives.

 

[Butwhythough2]

I'm with @AnOminous on this one, a test to see who in knows the constitution, at least the Bill of Rights. I'd also throw in a geography test naming each state and it's capital city. There are too many people that are of voting age that don't know this stuff. The year the country was founded, what war brought about independence, who was it against. A brief summary on why the British's plan didn't work, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, where the original US capital was located. Along with a summary of what the 3 branches of governments duties. Things that if you paid attention in a high school history class, would be very easy to pass. We have too many low information voters nowadays.

 

[No. 7 cat]

It doesn't matter. It's not needed. Most who vote are easily fooled into voting against their interests. Having a body of well informed voters, the very idea of it, wou

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

That's true, but a lot of people get more back in taxes than they pay. Common in trailer parks and inner cities. Should they really be allowed to vote?

Why not? Homeowners often have that happen, too. There's plenty of poor homeowners in rural areas that get way more than they put in

 

[Spud]

any attempt to restrict voting rights is really just trying to keep people who disagree with you from having a say

Yes. I believe that communists don't serve a say.

Baring that only Citizens should have the right to vote and service guarantees citizenship, would you like to know more?

 

[Cuntspiracy Man]

no restrictions, but no instructions either
you can vote if you can figure out what position you truly hold and find your way there yourself, otherwise scram, no more dumb puppets and yes-monkeys

Having a body of well informed voters, the very idea of it, wou

they assassinated this man before he could finish his thought

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

ID and extremely heavy restriction of absentee/mail-in voting.

 

[Tracer's Butt]

People in welfare and retarded people shouldn't vote.
Also ID should be needed for voting.
Mail-In voting should be banned.