I think banning voter rolls and requiring voters to register every time, and having to show proof of valid land or home ownership would be effective
Why should landowners be the only people enfranchised? We don't solely collect taxes from land ownership, and in say case renters and those who don't own land (maybe they work on Dad's farm or something) are equally governed by the law and government.
I'm very much of the camp that 1 adult citizen = 1 vote. If you've going to be taxed and governed by a democratic republic, then you have a right to vote and choose the people you want representing you.
Anyone who perfectly understands all the issues that are involved with the functioning of a government and the relevant history and context to make an informed decision.
So, in other words, literally no one.
Lol this is true. I work as a poll worker in Boston and I agree there are many voters (sometimes myself included) who really don't know who they're voting for in local races or are sometimes just checking a box with one candidate running unopposed. I won't pretend this is a well-reasoned or well-educated vote; but I also recognize sometimes unopposed candidates are unopposed because they're the only ones actually interested or qualified to do the job. (Church Vestry elections are often like that... you're not going to run for Property Committee out of stubbornness or spite, but because you want to do the church's property management for your 2-year term on a volunteer basis and feel you have the skill for it.)
In every state election law code I'm familiar with (NC, NY, MA) the voter doesn't even need to prove they know how to read. They just need to be able to tell me their name and address (MA), do the same and "make their mark" in the voter roll (NY) or tell me name, address, and provide ID (NC). That's a very low barrier to entry for the most part (I'm against voter ID requirements except in special circumstances that are too granular for you guys to understand or appreciate)
Knowing voters are dumb, uninformed, and potentially illiterate does not not change my view that every citizen is entitled to vote, though.
Voters who don't speak English can vote on a translated ballot and/or bring someone with them to assist them. They can also ask for 2 election officials from different parties to assist them. There's even a voting machine that will read the ballot to you and mark it for you if you're blind, so an illiterate voter could also use that to their advantage as well.
Some people will want to vote based on just a few races or ballot questions. Being a single-issue voter isn't cause for disenfranchisement. Being uninformed about races that don't affect you (e.g. school board when you're retired and kids all grown up) shouldn't prevent you from getting your full say. People care about what they want to; you can't make people educate themselves if they don't want to (as this forum amply proves time and time again.)
So, like the people vote for the mayor, the mayors vote for the state senator, and the state senators vote for the president?
This is called a Democratic Republic and it already exists. The point of electing parlimentary representatives (e.g. US House or Senate, State legislatures) is to prevent the time and hassle of holding elections on a really frequent basis.
At this point I can see the attraction, but it would be painful setting one up and ensuring royalty learns that they only rule as long as they care for their citizens a little, and never listen to Jews.
Your brain is like a rotting cheese. Any remaining monarchs in this day and age are purposefully unable to make meaningful decisions in their country's political process because those kinds of monarchs promote nepotism and fiscal corruption.
Secondly no NEETs, or alternatively you can only vote if you pay taxes.
Disagree; if you're governed by the system you should get to vote in the system.
I also personally see all the "early voting" going on as a real problem. It will be denied up and down, but whatever party controls the state office that runs elections inevitably has access to the early voting numbers.
Disagree; and I have some insight into the early voting process as well. Election boards are nonpartisan and early voting ballots are actually kept in sealed envelopes with an affidavit on the front (at least per Massachusetts law, but the other 49 states have similar processes) so that the counting of all votes occurs on Election Day, whether the ballot was cast in early voting, vote-by-mail, absentee ballot, or in person at the precinct.
Poll works literally have to open every single absentee ballot envelope, and inside is the ballot the voter wrote; these are put in a pile so we're not sure whose vote is whose (protecting the secrecy of the vote). We then scan the ballots into the voting machine one by one and they're counted like ballots cast in person.
Tabulation of electronic early votes are not calculated until election day; the nonpartisan BOE keeps these machines under strict security, and observers from any party are allowed to check on these and ensure no early tabulation occurred. Early voting doesn't confer a predictive advantage to the party currently in power in any voting law code I know.
Some people feel more comfortable casting their ballot in person, and I totally understand that (that's why I'm willing to work a 14-hour day at Roxbury Library on certain Tuesdays to give people in my community that liberty.) But other people will be unable to vote if you can't offer absentee or early-voting options; and research shows that those people are different than the ones who turn up at the poll site on election day (e.g. more likely to be black, to work blue-collar jobs with long hours that make getting to the poll site on Election day a hassle, or disabled/housebound people for whom going to the poll site is a substantial challenge.)
Fighting age men who either hold a livelihood that contributes to society or are actively serving.
Your policies and approaches to a lot of things will change when it's your own skin and future on the line.
Women, queers, and old farts have done nothing for society in a political sense. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing.
The founding fathers were old farts in their time and they were practically the only people enfranchised; so this comment makes very little sense.
Young men serving in the military or "contributing to society" (this is very vague; who decides what jobs contribute to society? Theoretically any job that's worth paying someone to do is a contribution to society) are not necessarily going to make more prudent decisions or be more up-to-date on election news than any other class of people.
That being said, you're right. It's little coincidence that the modern welfare nanny state got rolling shortly after women's suffrage passed.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. Women have every right to vote as men, as they're governed by the state and law. But let's say you're right and every woman in the country favors some issue (eg socialized medicine): that is a voter mandate that must be respected.
Under a system where only men voted, it was effectively the family unit casting a vote. Therefore, policies that benefit families tend to prevail. When all adults are allowed to vote, they tend to vote as an atomized block for whatever sounds vaguely good at the time. You can guess what prevails under that system.
Disagree; allowing only the male head of household to vote was effectively allowing him to make decisions for his wife and adult family members even if they disagreed with him. It's paternalistic and unrepresentative of what the citizens of this country actually want.
Honestly I'm still on the fence as to whether or not we need to end women's suffrage entirely. It seems like the very least you could get away with would be banning voting for the unmarried in general, but even that's dicey.
Oh fuck this nonsense. Not that you'll ever get what you want in any jurisdiction, but knowing there's guys like you out there who think it would be good to deprive me of that right is a real kick in the pants to exercise it constantly.
TL;DR
1 citizen = 1 vote. If you're governed and taxed by the government and subject to its laws, you have the right to express how that power should be used and that right is exercised by enfranchising you.
Voter literacy tests, IQ tests, or other types of gatekeeping are morally wrong. A dumb or uninformed voter still gets to make his choice about who he wants representing him.
Women will never be disenfranchised (stare decisis, m
because they have the same right as men to say who will govern them. Minorities who receive government benefits in excess of the tax they pay are still subject to the law and governmental decisions, and so they should have a choice in who gets to make those decisions. Voters also have a right to vote for policies that benefit them; even if other voters who wouldn't benefit from that policy disagree. We each express our preferences with our vote. That's what's fair.
The focus on voters needing to own land is disturbing and unbalanced. The government collects taxes from sources other than property (income, excise), so why should tenants or non-landholding people not get a vote?
