Unfair voting restrictions in Indiana. Wait! What?

[Hohn]

You essentially posted a list of things that shouldn't exist, shouldn't be regulated, or should be in the realm of private interests. Ergo, you're not helping yourself.... .

Hmm. I'm sort of a fan of regulating blood donor lists, which ARE a private interest (red cross isn't gov't).

 

[Hohn]

Let us recall that at the founding of our country, only land-owning males could vote.

Now, if you are a Democrat or currently a college student, you probably believe that this is because the cabal that included someone who wrote "all men are created equal" was just a bunch of racists, misogynists, and miscreants of ill will and poor education.

But a more objective viewer would conclude differently. And the idea that the voting franchise would be so severely limited was not controversial at the time. Is it because all of society was similarly unenlightened?


Or maybe, just maybe there was a method to the madness?

There was. That method was ensuring that the right to vote was confined to those who had the most direct vested interest in their communities-- SKIN IN THE GAME. Most issues of the national and state governments involved land rights and land usage. Constraining the votes to those who owned land ensured the those most affected by government were the ones determining its course.

And because these participants had that skin in the game, they were highly educated on the issues before them. The combination of a government of narrow scope and a voter base made of those most impacted by that was reasonable and effective, imo.


The point here is that voter participation, in and of itself, is not a desirable goal. It is not desirable that someone who can't place Iran on the map have the same electoral input as someone who has paid attention to international affairs. It is not desirable the someone who has not bothered to inform himself on any issue at all should just show up and cast a ballot because someone paid him to do so.

Moreover, there is an obvious conflict of interest with so many actual voters being net beneficiaries of wealth transfer payments. The idea that someone who has netted no financial contribution to the funding of government should have a co-equal say as those who have contributed should be repulsive to any reasonably-minded person. We'd never accept that a stock broker talking up a business in which he has pecuniary interest. We'd not accept a chief of police investigating his own misconduct.


It is important to understand that disenfranchising the vote is not only done by disallowing a vote to be cast-- it can just as easily be done by allowing a vote to be cast that offsets a vote with a more valid claim to the franchise. It is not as valid for a nonresident alien to vote as it is for a citizen. And allowing an improper vote disenfranchises a proper vote.

The very worst that can be said of a voter ID law is that is as disenfranchisement is still the same. The only difference is that a voter ID law might disenfranchise a legitimate vote by preventing it from being cast, while NOT HAVING the voter ID law disenfranchises every other properly cast vote by introducing improperly cast ballots.


We all have an interest in votes being fewer and higher quality-- as our individual votes each count more.

 

[JTScribe]

Hmm. Not ID-related but interesting nonetheless, especially since there have been suggestions to do online voting. I shudder to think of the security of a governmental system assembled by the bidder with the most connections. Go paper or go home.

Arizona Secretary of State Confirms Election Fraud

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let us recall that at the founding of our country, only land-owning males could vote.

Now, if you are a Democrat or currently a college student, you probably believe that this is because the cabal that included someone who wrote "all men are created equal" was just a bunch of racists, misogynists, and miscreants of ill will and poor education.

But a more objective viewer would conclude differently. And the idea that the voting franchise would be so severely limited was not controversial at the time. Is it because all of society was similarly unenlightened?


Or maybe, just maybe there was a method to the madness?

There was. That method was ensuring that the right to vote was confined to those who had the most direct vested interest in their communities-- SKIN IN THE GAME. Most issues of the national and state governments involved land rights and land usage. Constraining the votes to those who owned land ensured the those most affected by government were the ones determining its course.

And because these participants had that skin in the game, they were highly educated on the issues before them. The combination of a government of narrow scope and a voter base made of those most impacted by that was reasonable and effective, imo.


The point here is that voter participation, in and of itself, is not a desirable goal. It is not desirable that someone who can't place Iran on the map have the same electoral input as someone who has paid attention to international affairs. It is not desirable the someone who has not bothered to inform himself on any issue at all should just show up and cast a ballot because someone paid him to do so.

Moreover, there is an obvious conflict of interest with so many actual voters being net beneficiaries of wealth transfer payments. The idea that someone who has netted no financial contribution to the funding of government should have a co-equal say as those who have contributed should be repulsive to any reasonably-minded person. We'd never accept that a stock broker talking up a business in which he has pecuniary interest. We'd not accept a chief of police investigating his own misconduct.


It is important to understand that disenfranchising the vote is not only done by disallowing a vote to be cast-- it can just as easily be done by allowing a vote to be cast that offsets a vote with a more valid claim to the franchise. It is not as valid for a nonresident alien to vote as it is for a citizen. And allowing an improper vote disenfranchises a proper vote.

The very worst that can be said of a voter ID law is that is as disenfranchisement is still the same. The only difference is that a voter ID law might disenfranchise a legitimate vote by preventing it from being cast, while NOT HAVING the voter ID law disenfranchises every other properly cast vote by introducing improperly cast ballots.


We all have an interest in votes being fewer and higher quality-- as our individual votes each count more.

Women could own property, as could free blacks at the founding of the nation. They had "skin" in the game. So why couldn't they vote? Truth be told, the founding fathers, generally, weren't racists; they were pragmatic. They knew that most of their countrymen weren't as enlightened as they were, and held very conservative beliefs (especially in the South). They knew that blacks and women had to be excluded from the process in order to get the govt working.... But they had hopes eventually the people would rise above such closed minded thinking.

 

[Lowe0]

Let us recall that at the founding of our country, only land-owning males could vote.

Now, if you are a Democrat or currently a college student, you probably believe that this is because the cabal that included someone who wrote "all men are created equal" was just a bunch of racists, misogynists, and miscreants of ill will and poor education.

But a more objective viewer would conclude differently. And the idea that the voting franchise would be so severely limited was not controversial at the time. Is it because all of society was similarly unenlightened?


Or maybe, just maybe there was a method to the madness?

There was. That method was ensuring that the right to vote was confined to those who had the most direct vested interest in their communities-- SKIN IN THE GAME. Most issues of the national and state governments involved land rights and land usage. Constraining the votes to those who owned land ensured the those most affected by government were the ones determining its course.

And because these participants had that skin in the game, they were highly educated on the issues before them. The combination of a government of narrow scope and a voter base made of those most impacted by that was reasonable and effective, imo.


The point here is that voter participation, in and of itself, is not a desirable goal. It is not desirable that someone who can't place Iran on the map have the same electoral input as someone who has paid attention to international affairs. It is not desirable the someone who has not bothered to inform himself on any issue at all should just show up and cast a ballot because someone paid him to do so.

Moreover, there is an obvious conflict of interest with so many actual voters being net beneficiaries of wealth transfer payments. The idea that someone who has netted no financial contribution to the funding of government should have a co-equal say as those who have contributed should be repulsive to any reasonably-minded person. We'd never accept that a stock broker talking up a business in which he has pecuniary interest. We'd not accept a chief of police investigating his own misconduct.


It is important to understand that disenfranchising the vote is not only done by disallowing a vote to be cast-- it can just as easily be done by allowing a vote to be cast that offsets a vote with a more valid claim to the franchise. It is not as valid for a nonresident alien to vote as it is for a citizen. And allowing an improper vote disenfranchises a proper vote.

The very worst that can be said of a voter ID law is that is as disenfranchisement is still the same. The only difference is that a voter ID law might disenfranchise a legitimate vote by preventing it from being cast, while NOT HAVING the voter ID law disenfranchises every other properly cast vote by introducing improperly cast ballots.


We all have an interest in votes being fewer and higher quality-- as our individual votes each count more.

How much wealth is enough, in your proposal, to earn a seat at the table?

 

[Birds Away]

Um, tree fiddy.

 

[GREEN607]

Women could own property, as could free blacks at the founding of the nation. They had "skin" in the game. So why couldn't they vote? Truth be told, the founding fathers, generally, weren't racists; they were pragmatic. They knew that most of their countrymen weren't as enlightened as they were, and held very conservative beliefs (especially in the South). They knew that blacks and women had to be excluded from the process in order to get the govt working.... But they had hopes eventually the people would rise above such closed minded thinking.

Firstly, very good post by Hohn, above. IMHO, that post is insightful and correct. Kudos, bro.

Kut- I agree mostly with your post, altho I do think there was a tad of 'racism' held by the land-owning patriots of that time. However, I also believe that their main concern.... was liberty; both for individual citizens, and for the newly founded nation, from England. For all accounts, many of them were visionaries, of a new way of life. They had found a land in which the possibilities seemed endless... and where liberty could stand and grow.

Unfortunately, I'm fairly sure there were a few things that would develope in the next 150-200 years, that they could not have envisioned. One, being the "industrial revolution" and the era of mass production. The second, being the vast influx of new incoming migrants that chose to risk their very lives to come to America, and seek such liberty. Another, and certainly the LEAST forseeable, would be the beginning of the demise of the great nation they had founded.... by the "me first" generations and the inherent greed that came with mass production of 'convenience' items, in place of the conservative notion of essential items.And in the last two generations, in America, the throwing aside of the family unit and family values, by many... must have been unimaginable to gentlemen like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

 

[chipbennett]

On of he problems of a 24 hour poll, can you get enough volunteers to work it? I think they have a hard time already.

People should actually try runninga polling place sometime, and then let's see what they think of the feasibility of a 24-hour election.

 

[jamil]

People should actually try runninga polling place sometime, and then let's see what they think of the feasibility of a 24-hour election.

It would solve a lot of problems for voters but running an election would be much more complicated.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If people want something bad enough, they'll see to it they get their ducks in a row and make the necessary provisions to make it happen. For those that really don't care that much, you could provide chauffeured limousines and free lunch and there'd still be folks complaining about the color of the car or why they couldn't get a gluten free meal.

 

[jamil]

If people want something bad enough, they'll see to it they get their ducks in a row and make the necessary provisions to make it happen. For those that really don't care that much, you could provide chauffeured limousines and free lunch and there'd still be folks complaining about the color of the car or why they couldn't get a gluten free meal.

Dang limmos didn't even have WIFI. What kind of cheap outfit are they running anyway?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Dang limmos didn't even have WIFI. What kind of cheap outfit are they running anyway?

See! Who could blame them for not voting?!?!?

 

[Hohn]

How much wealth is enough, in your proposal, to earn a seat at the table?

Nothing was mentioned about wealth.

 

[indyjohn]

Let us recall that at the founding of our country, only land-owning males could vote.

Now, if you are a Democrat or currently a college student, you probably believe that this is because the cabal that included someone who wrote "all men are created equal" was just a bunch of racists, misogynists, and miscreants of ill will and poor education.

But a more objective viewer would conclude differently. And the idea that the voting franchise would be so severely limited was not controversial at the time. Is it because all of society was similarly unenlightened?


Or maybe, just maybe there was a method to the madness?

There was. That method was ensuring that the right to vote was confined to those who had the most direct vested interest in their communities-- SKIN IN THE GAME. Most issues of the national and state governments involved land rights and land usage. Constraining the votes to those who owned land ensured the those most affected by government were the ones determining its course.

And because these participants had that skin in the game, they were highly educated on the issues before them. The combination of a government of narrow scope and a voter base made of those most impacted by that was reasonable and effective, imo.


The point here is that voter participation, in and of itself, is not a desirable goal. It is not desirable that someone who can't place Iran on the map have the same electoral input as someone who has paid attention to international affairs. It is not desirable the someone who has not bothered to inform himself on any issue at all should just show up and cast a ballot because someone paid him to do so.

Moreover, there is an obvious conflict of interest with so many actual voters being net beneficiaries of wealth transfer payments. The idea that someone who has netted no financial contribution to the funding of government should have a co-equal say as those who have contributed should be repulsive to any reasonably-minded person. We'd never accept that a stock broker talking up a business in which he has pecuniary interest. We'd not accept a chief of police investigating his own misconduct.


It is important to understand that disenfranchising the vote is not only done by disallowing a vote to be cast-- it can just as easily be done by allowing a vote to be cast that offsets a vote with a more valid claim to the franchise. It is not as valid for a nonresident alien to vote as it is for a citizen. And allowing an improper vote disenfranchises a proper vote.

The very worst that can be said of a voter ID law is that is as disenfranchisement is still the same. The only difference is that a voter ID law might disenfranchise a legitimate vote by preventing it from being cast, while NOT HAVING the voter ID law disenfranchises every other properly cast vote by introducing improperly cast ballots.


We all have an interest in votes being fewer and higher quality-- as our individual votes each count more.

I read your entire post, out load, to OkieGirl.

You sir, are my new interwebz hero.

 

[oldpink]

Nothing was mentioned about wealth.

Oh, it's there alright.
Just combine all the letters from the post he's rebutting, and you can form that word, along with "racist" and "xenophobe."
Remember the history here.

 

[Lowe0]

Nothing was mentioned about wealth.

Land isn't wealth? News to me.

But, I'll rephrase: how much of a net financial contribution is required before a citizen deserves their vote? And more importantly, what makes your answer right in the eyes of someone else who makes a larger net financial contribution than you? If you insist on skin in the game, don't be surprised when someone else inevitably decides that whatever you're willing or able to put in isn't enough to have a say.

 

[Hohn]

Land isn't wealth? News to me.

But, I'll rephrase: how much of a net financial contribution is required before a citizen deserves their vote? And more importantly, what makes your answer right in the eyes of someone else who makes a larger net financial contribution than you? If you insist on skin in the game, don't be surprised when someone else inevitably decides that whatever you're willing or able to put in isn't enough to have a say.

One need not wade into that ocean. It's sufficient to simply stop at the binary contributor/non contributor level of detail.


The only way to have perfect correlation of contribution to benefit it to eliminate a government and public goods entirely. I sort of think government is necessary. So I accept some redistribution on terms of how much people contribute.

But to have contributed NOTHING, and indeed net several thousand dollars per year in "refundable" credits and STILL get a co-equal say at the ballot box? That's problematic for obvious reasons.

But we should all acknowledge that a tax system that subsidized the lower 99% heavily at the expense of the top 1% is problematic:

 

[Lowe0]

One need not wade into that ocean. It's sufficient to simply stop at the binary contributor/non contributor level of detail.


The only way to have perfect correlation of contribution to benefit it to eliminate a government and public goods entirely. I sort of think government is necessary. So I accept some redistribution on terms of how much people contribute.

But to have contributed NOTHING, and indeed net several thousand dollars per year in "refundable" credits and STILL get a co-equal say at the ballot box? That's problematic for obvious reasons.

But we should all acknowledge that a tax system that subsidized the lower 99% heavily at the expense of the top 1% is problematic:

To you, it's not necessary, but what about to someone who makes more than you? If you're okay with disenfranchising those who don't contribute as much as you do, then what happens when someone else decides to do the same to you? Why should you have the same rights as the 1%?

 

[Kutnupe14]

To you, it's not necessary, but what about to someone who makes more than you? If you're okay with disenfranchising those who don't contribute as much as you do, then what happens when someone else decides to do the same to you? Why should you have the same rights as the 1%?

^^^ a point, the man has one.

 

[KLB]

^^^ a point, the man has one.

They both do. Being able to vote yourself more free stuff is bad as well.

This discussion is fruitless though. The right to vote is not going to be stripped from people that already can vote.