Recent poll re postponing the election

[UKHistory]

I am 100% for all Citizens being eligible to vote if not incarerated. Once a person has paid his or her debt, they should be eligible to vote in local, state, and national elections.

[kingcat]

I am 100% for all Citizens being eligible to vote if not incarerated. Once a person has paid his or her debt, they should be eligible to vote in local, state, and national elections.

oh....I thought you said Citizen.. He's never been caught

[UKHistory]

Upper case C on citizen is a force of habit.

[CitizenBBN]

oh....I thought you said Citizen.. He's never been caught

Damned right. But you never know.

[CitizenBBN]

Yes it's true the power of the state is derived from the People, but the Founders absolutely never intended or thought that to mean that everyone should therefore vote.

the reason is that this nation wasn't founded to provide democracy. Democracy isn't a goal, democracy is a means, a system. neither was the nation founded to provide a bicameral legislature or a three part government. All of those things were inventions designed to meet the real goal.

The real goal of this nation is to provide individual liberty.

Democracy was just one part of the system devised to try and limit government and allow for preservation of that liberty, endowed by God and only to be taken away to the minimum level required for the functioning of the nation.

Thus there was never the notion of a universal franchise. The Founders limited it to people who basically had skin in the game, i.e. property owners.

Why? B/c of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin (which is really just a Reader's Digest version and should be attributed to Lord Woodhouselee) : When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.

The Founders knew that in truth real democracy was not good for individual liberty. Sound wrong? it's not. B/c they that the power of the state could be used for immoral and very non-liberty providing purposes, and that is exactly what we now see happening.

So if only those who owned property could vote, they would tend to not vote for things that took property from people. They would also be people of generally higher education with more time to properly study the issues and make more informed decisions.

The founders absolutely would not want people voting who don't know the 3 branches of government or can't find the US on a globe.

And you know what? Neither do I.

I freely admit, I have no desire to see felons vote, or anyone else who doesn't have a damned clue about what is going on. I wouldn't randomly drag people off the street to help make business decisions, why on Earth would I want some illiterate person who doesn't know the first thing about economics, foreign policy, etc. making decisions about who runs the country?

When those who want universal franchise start randomly bringing in homeless people to help them pick stocks and plan their retirements or choose their next car or house, then I'll believe they are consistent in their thinking. Otherwise, if they are going to CPAs and investment advisors and attorneys and such for their advice, maybe they ought to consider that doing the same thing for the country as a whole is a good idea.


Voting is not a right. Voting is a privilege bestowed as part off a system designed to protect all our liberty. Simply put, if the Founders had access to an all knowing machine that could insure our liberty and proper functioning of the government without any human assistance, they'd have gleefully turned it on and let it run the whole show.

In fact they knew this system was deeply flawed b/c in the end it still relied on humans making decisions, and humans are notorious for making decisions in their own self interest, and that's why at every turn the government is turned against itself, and why voting was so limited.

Voting is thus as deeply flawed as is Congress and the other branches, and they knew it. It was always flawed, will always be flawed, and the only hope was to constrain the whole government so much that it just couldn't manage to do much damage. But voting was never a goal, it's just another systemic flaw we have to tolerate until we come up with a better system.

Democracy is the worst government, except for all the rest. but It was never the goal, it's just a pale shadow on the wall of the cave while we wait for some other system or human evolution to finally deliver real liberty.

[CitizenBBN]

On to Franklin's "quote" and what we see today, it was completely right.

Basically those on the Left want illegals to vote etc. b/c those people will vote overwhelmingly for their side, keeping them in power, and they vote that way b/c of the limitless promises of handing them free stuff.

Sorry, but that's the truth. People have figured out they can vote themselves money. So now half of the eligible workers in this country don't work, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who is completely able-bodied drawing disability, and people are actually claiming it as an accomplishment when more people go on something like food stamps.

What started as programs to temporarily help people back up has become a modern system of slavery that is every bit as vicious as the old one, robbing people of their basic dignity, self-respect and self-reliance. And they happily vote for it b/c it beats working harder.

So yes the GOP generally wants to limit voting, b/c people who have no problems having a drivers license and haven't committed any felonies tend to vote for them (though not overwhelmingly), and Democrats want more voting b/c people who for some inexplicable reason don't have a photo ID of any kind and/or have a rap sheet tend to vote for them.

I'm not sure Democrats should be proud of that fact, nor Republicans ashamed of their position.

Personally if you haven't had a job since reaching adulthood, do and/or deal drugs, and generally sponge off the people who are working hard and paying into the system ever year, no I don't think you should get a say in what we do as a nation.

People who pay taxes, hold down jobs, and keep the country running, I'm just fine if those are the people making the decisions, whether they lean left or right.

I've dealt with so many people who I wouldn't trust to drive my car down the driveway. Seriously, with the current drug epidemic and disability epidemic etc. there are vast swaths of people eligible to vote who if you met them in real life you wouldn't let them in your front door. Why would we want them making decisions for you and your family? that's what one is saying when they say they want those people to have an equal voice in who runs the country.

They're going to vote for whoever satiates their desires in the short run, without any regard to you, your family or their future. They wont' even care for their own kids, what care will they give to the world they're leaving yours?

so we have about $100 trillion in combined government debt or so, all due from someone somewhere but it's not their problem, and politicians in order to stay in power are happy to hand it down to your kids and grand-kids too.

BTW, that $100 TRILLION number is right. That's one estimate of our total unfunded liabilities, federal state and local. All b/c people figured out they could vote themselves money.

[CitizenBBN]

Also let me be clear, that characterization is NOT of Democrats as a whole, or those who support those policies or universal franchise, etc.

It's just that a large numeric part of the voting base IS accurately characterized by the above, and the Democrats want those people voting b/c they vote overwhelmingly for their side.

If most Americans who work hard and pay taxes and carry their share of the load all vote for Democrats or some policy of wealth transfer then there we are. I don't agree with it, but there we are.

But apologize for wanting that decision to be made by those people, the folks on here on both sides, versus the kinds of people I know who are stoned all the time, illiterate, selfish, thieving, lowlifes? Nope.

If others who contribute decide that's what we're going to do I will disagree, I will argue it's contrary to our goals as a nation, but at least it hasn't been taken from me by people who are sitting around all day while I go work to pay their bills.


PS - don't think I don't think a number of GOP voters also have MAJOR issues. They do. I presume David Duke and others vote GOP a lot, and those people I don't want voting either. but there's no doubt that numerically the GOP will fare better the more we limit voting, the Dems will do better the more it expands to those who don't have IDs, etc. this isn't "one party better than the other", it's just how the math works out for who will vote for what.

It's also why the GOP has started to become Democrat Lite on a lot of issues like health care. They're willing to start handing out the goodies too in order to get votes, and they are absolutely 100% every bit as corrupt about staying in power. It's a whole separate topic, but I don't like the GOP either. I'm a Libertarian, and thus have no real home.

[CitizenBBN]

I am 100% for all Citizens being eligible to vote if not incarerated. Once a person has paid his or her debt, they should be eligible to vote in local, state, and national elections.

I'm curious, and I mean this with complete respects.

How many felons do you know personally?

I know several, and you know what? None of them are really reformed. Not really. I've even tried to help a few, and they stole and cheated the first chance they got.

I have no doubt some have turned their lives around and are great people, but the odds are they are not. Only a small number ever get out of the circumstances that led to their misdeeds.

Yes it's a mark that stays with them forever and for those who change, those wrongly convicted, and those convicted of felonies that many may not see as a big deal, that is not very fair. I get that completely.

But for every one of those guys there are many more who deserved it, and deserved a number of others for which they were never caught.

[UKHistory]

I'm curious, and I mean this with complete respects.

How many felons do you know personally?

I know several, and you know what? None of them are really reformed. Not really. I've even tried to help a few, and they stole and cheated the first chance they got.

I have no doubt some have turned their lives around and are great people, but the odds are they are not. Only a small number ever get out of the circumstances that led to their misdeeds.

Yes it's a mark that stays with them forever and for those who change, those wrongly convicted, and those convicted of felonies that many may not see as a big deal, that is not very fair. I get that completely.

But for every one of those guys there are many more who deserved it, and deserved a number of others for which they were never caught.

Truly know? Not any. I have been in a support group or two with convicted individuals. I have relatives who have been incarerated for public intoxication or small amounts of drugs.

But no hard core felons.

I am not sure they are reformed. Sounds like your experience says they are not. In the abstract, once you are out I do think you should have the right to vote. I can see people not wanting to hire you. I can see others not wanting to live by you. I think they should vote.

[kingcat]

Well, its my belief that in a free society, the disenfranchised (and I'm not talking felons here) would use their liberty to eventually rise up and over throw such a government. No offense Chuck but, but I find yours a scary line of thought.
I have family that probably couldn't find Washington on a map..but they would be a lifesaver in the event of a catastrophe.
And their common sense is not to be devalued either.

You would be hard pressed to support a government without the voluntary backs of average and below average minds in this or any country. And they would demand the vote with picks and axes. I dont envision such a view as yours (if I understand correctly) as supported by those who actually fought for this country's independence. the political types,, kept that to themselves I'm sure
I dont even think education was a huge commodity at that time.

If every citizen doesn't have a right to vote, then the vote isn't needed anyway. And neither was the war for independence. The British had it right all along.


I think this sums up the motives behind voter disenfranchisement of that day..

..it reflected eighteenth-century English notions about gender, race, prudence, and financial success, as well as vested interest. Arguments for a white, male-only electorate focused on what the men of the era conceived of as the delicate nature of women and their inability to deal with the coarse realities of politics, as well as convictions about race and religion.

African Americans and Native Americans were excluded, and, at different times and places, the Protestant majority denied the vote to Catholics and Jews.
In some places, propertied women, free blacks, and Native Americans could vote, but those exceptions were just that. They were not signs of a popular belief in universal suffrage.
Property requirements were widespread. Some colonies required a voter to own a certain amount of land or land of a specified value.
Others required personal property of a certain value, or payment of a certain amount of taxes.

Examples from 1763 show the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.

[kingcat]

After thinking it through, Im not sure Hoosier or Louisville fans should be allowed to vote

[CitizenBBN]

First, we're already disenfranchised. Do you really think your individual vote counts for much, or mine? Do any of us here really think our leaders really, deeply care about how we're doing?

So individually I don't know what it does for us. it makes us feel like we're inputting, but really we're just a mass, not individuals. That's why we have the gerrymandering, the voter laws in both directions, etc. It's not about individuals, it's a numbers game.

When I get into these discussions with people they always focus on the historic and false reasons for not extending the franchise, such as sex and race. Of course no one supports such notions.

And I mostly only make this point from time to time to highlight the fact that no democracy isn't a goal, it's a means to a goal, and we've apparently lost sight of the goal. people seem to often confuse democracy with liberty, but they aren't the same thing. You can have a democracy that restricts liberty terribly.

I also have a problem with the notion these days that rights come without any responsibility. If we consider voting a right, OK, then where is the responsibility to educate oneself and use that right responsibly? Not to vote conservative, but to vote with knowledge of what you are voting for either way.

I don't see that as unreasonable. I only use the past as a highlight of the fact that it was part of the original idea that those who voted would be more aware, educated and responsible with their vote.

I'm not suggesting we go back to property requirements etc., but I am going to suggest that these modern notions that everyone should vote simply b/c they should without any regard to whether they have exercised the responsibility to know for what they are voting are false narratives. They are equating voting with liberty in some way, exercising their rights, but ignoring the responsibility that comes with doing so.

And no, I don't like the idea that people in large numbers have control over my life indirectly and they can't find the US on a globe. I don't care to have anyone in control of me, but given a choice I would like it to be people who at least have some understanding of the world around them. Doesn't have be the same perspective I have on it, but it would be nice if it wasn't the idiots you can find endlessly on these "man on the street" videos where they name Buzz Lightyear as a famous astronaut. lol.

[CitizenBBN]

After thinking it through, Im not sure Hoosier or Louisville fans should be allowed to vote

If we lift the felony restrictions a lot more of them would be eligible.

[CitizenBBN]

In the abstract, once you are out I do think you should have the right to vote. I can see people not wanting to hire you. I can see others not wanting to live by you. I think they should vote.

If we don't want them as neighbors or working with us, why would we want them with a say in how our whole life is run and how our future pans out?

In the abstract I can see why we'd want their rights generally restored in some way.

But if we give them the right to vote do we restore their 2nd Amendment rights as well? Those are also restricted for felons. But if they can vote can't they now have a gun too?

And if we can't trust them to such a degree we won't let them have a full right of self defense out of fear of their irresponsible behavior, why would we trust them to vote and help shape the direction of the nation?

In the abstract I see the argument, I do. But in reality I see too many of them simply not having the basic responsibility needed to be afforded such a thing.

[Doc]

Folks who have an interest in voting should. Those who don't, fine. All this get out to vote stuff is bunk IMO. These campaigns to merely boost the numbers are silly. Of course the left works to get people who lean that way while the right does the same, just the other direction. Too bad those folks are typically not well informed on what the party is supporting. You are encouraging the uniformed to vote.

[CitizenBBN]

Folks who have an interest in voting should. Those who don't, fine. All this get out to vote stuff is bunk IMO. These campaigns to merely boost the numbers are silly. Of course the left works to get people who lean that way while the right does the same, just the other direction. Too bad those folks are typically not well informed on what the party is supporting. You are encouraging the uniformed to vote.

Both parties are highly engaged in "getting out the vote", which as you said is just a numbers game manipulation to get out "their" likely voters.

It isn't outright fraud so long as those actual people do vote, but it's about as sincere an effort at democracy as UL arguing the NCAA shouldn't punish the players by taking away their wins.

[Catonahottinroof]

I'm much like Doc in that people who want to vote (legally, hate that I have to add this), then they should. Felons with stipulation, but IMO they should if they are productive members of society.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm much like Doc in that people who want to vote (legally, hate that I have to add this), then they should. Felons with stipulation, but IMO they should if they are productive members of society.

I have no problem with some path whereby felons re-earn their rights, including their right to self defense with a firearm. But to just grant it when they get out and their probation ends? Absolutely not. Every study shows that the vast majority of people in that group are still committing crimes, they just haven't been caught again yet.

I googled some numbers to support the point. Within 5 years of release from prison about 75%-80% of felons are re-arrested. MOre than half are re-arrested within a year. So maybe after 10 years with no crimes you figure they have passed some bar, 5 at a bare absolute minimum, but there has to be some test of some kind, be it time or something else.

[kingcat]

Similarly the elderly vote could be questioned. A large percentage sees their cognitive function decrease after a certain age.

And an argument could include those on certain medications, especially anti depressants or anyone medically classified as an alcoholic.
Then it would follow that former alcoholics or other type addicts should be required to prove they were clean for a set period of time.

Some of these are logical and would actually improve the system in some ways. And I am being serious.

But. it is not the system of a truly free society.

[KSRBEvans]

IMHO we've drawn distinctions between misdemeanors and felonies in this country (and for centuries in other nation-states) for good reason, and those distinctions shouldn't be tossed aside.

There's a process for felons to have their rights restored (here's info on Kentucky's, for example), and I think a case-by-case determination is the better approach.

[UKHistory]

BEvans,

Thanks for sharing this. I will read closely over the weekend. I am inconsistent in terms of firearms, I would say the right to carry and own a gun after conviction should be granted. Pardons are different. But felons don't need guns. Take up karate.

I think with voting rights once you are out of prison, full rights to vote should be resored. I am sure some and maybe a lot have not been rehabilitated. I am sure some and maybe a lot will commit another crime and be back in prison.

If they are out of prison having paid their debt, I would work to help US citizens convicted of felonies to regain the right to vote.

I just think it is right thing to do. Felons don't have strong lobbying groups. They are not cute and cuddly or particularly nice. This stance of mine is not about about popularity.

But allowing them to participate in an event which defines one of the most patriotic actions an American can perform is good for the country and their own sense of self worth.

[KeithKSR]

BEvans,

Thanks for sharing this. I will read closely over the weekend. I am inconsistent in terms of firearms, I would say the right to carry and own a gun after conviction should be granted. Pardons are different. But felons don't need guns. Take up karate.

I think with voting rights once you are out of prison, full rights to vote should be resored. I am sure some and maybe a lot have not been rehabilitated. I am sure some and maybe a lot will commit another crime and be back in prison.

If they are out of prison having paid their debt, I would work to help US citizens convicted of felonies to regain the right to vote.

I just think it is right thing to do. Felons don't have strong lobbying groups. They are not cute and cuddly or particularly nice. This stance of mine is not about about popularity.

But allowing them to participate in an event which defines one of the most patriotic actions an American can perform is good for the country and their own sense of self worth.

Agree on the voting rights. Firearm ownership rights reinstatement is a murky area for me. Non-violent felons I may lean toward restoring their 2A rights, but the violent offender who pleads guilty to a lesser non-violent offense keeps me from going with 2A rights restoration.

[kingcat]

All thought provoking info gang..

Cant help but post my new favorite jail song. Check out this version of "Branded man", a tribute to Merle by Vince Gill and the great Paul Franklin on steel guitar. I met Paul a couple of times..he is awesome.
And Vince..well, is Vince.

[UKHistory]

That sounds great. Love to meet some time.

[kingcat]

That sounds great. Love to meet some time.

I'm scheduled for release any time now.

[Doc]

A recent poll published in The Washington Post found 52% of republicans would be in favor of postponing the 2020 election if the there was a voting problem.

If that number were accurate then I'd expect 3-4 of the 7 votes to be postpone under circumstances. I still say the Wapo numbers are bogus or intentionally skewed.

[UKHistory]

I was shocked. But a lot is how the questioned is posed. My poll doesn't replicate their poll word for word.

It is also possible their is a better quality of people. We all bleed blue.