Posted: 7/6/2008 9:51:32 AM EDT
|
I had an earlier thread on this topic which attracted many replies, both positive and negative. Unfortunately, in my earlier thread, I had not thought it out in advance as carefully as I should have. I had the general idea right, but not the particulars. I went back to the drawing board, and here is what I came up with this time. Kick this around for awhile and give us your comments please. OMEGA62's PROPOSED NEW VOTING RULES: 1. Everyone who wishes to vote in this country must first register. As part of the registration, they will be required to prove that they are an American citizen (standard documents, similar to applying for a passport), and a criminal background check will be run on them to make sure they are not a felon or a fugitive (similar to NICS check for buying a gun). 2. After successful completion of step 1, they will be required to pass a test. The test will have heavy emphasis on civics and history, and will be designed to ensure that the applicant understands the American system of government, as it was intended to work by our founding fathers (and not Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin, for example). If they pass the test, they can become registered voters. If they fail, then they may retest as often as they like, however, there will be different tests used, so that they won't always get the same one. The test will be offered in one language only: ENGLISH. 3. If they successfully complete steps 1 and 2 above, they will then become registered voters, and will have ONE vote in every election. 4. Veterans who were discharged honorably from the armed forces will have FIVE votes in every election, and will be exempt from the testing requirement outlined in step 2. This will affirm the principle that those who wore a uniform to serve our country and protect its freedoms SHOULD have the most say in its democratic processes. 5. Veterans who received various decorations will be granted additional votes above the basic five, depending on type of decoration. Winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor will be granted 100 votes in every election (the maximum). 6. Taxpayers will receive one additional vote up to a maximum of five votes for every ten thousand dollars in taxes they pay. This will be to allow those who pay the most in taxes to have more say in how their tax money is going to be spent. The maximum number of votes for non-veteran taxpayers will be five, however, so that billionaires will not have more say in elections than veterans (unless of course said billionaire IS a veteran, and perhaps a CMH winner for example). 7. People who are on welfare will be restricted from voting until such time as they are once more self-sufficient individuals who are paying taxes. This is to prevent people who are permanently on welfare from voting more welfare for themselves with other people's money. **VETERANS WHO ARE DISABLED AND RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE WILL BE EXEMPT FROM THIS, AND WILL ALWAYS HAVE FIVE VOTES REGARDLESS. I believe that if the above measures were implemented, we would have much less social pathology in this country today. Discuss. Cite specific examples. Debate me on the basis of logic and ideas please. No personal attacks. |
I agree with this. The rest is BS. |
You fail your own test. Feel free to try again. |
|
1: Yes, registering to vote is a good idea. 2: No. Historically, this sort of test has been used as a discriminatory tool, which is contrary to the principles of representative government. Further, there is absolutely no way to guarantee that those writing the test are not disciples of Marx and Lenin. 4: No. Members of the military are not, and should not be, a special class, set aside from the general population. Such a concept would be contrary to the principles this nation was founded on. 5: No. See above. 6: No. You should not be able to buy additional votes. 7: No. As much as I despise the welfare state, this is not a valid method of ending it. Your ideas were bad the first time around, and they are no better this time. |
Thank you for disagreeing with me in an intelligent and reasoned manner. I respect your ideas. My concern is that we already do have disciples of Marx and Lenin perpetuating their ideas in government, and that a good many of them are the elected officials of a certain political party. I also believe that if nothing is done to change the course we as a society are on, then your supposed rights and freedoms are going to be rendered meaningless within most of our lifetimes. I believe this will result from a combination of three things, in the main: - "The entitlement mentality" among ignorant and poorly educated voters, who believe they are entitled to all sorts of things for free. - Professional politicians who are only interested in power for it's own sake, and will engage in any form of duplicity in catering to the ignorance of the "entitlement" crowd, to get themselves elected and further their own power, when in fact they actually hold common people (and their rights) in contempt. and, - The fact that the concepts of personal responsibility, self reliance, and rugged individualism, without which individual liberty cannot survive, are completely incompatible with the first two points mentioned, and will become extinct (along with freedom itself) if something isn't done to change this. I stand by my original points, which are that: - People who served their country and fought for freedom will be the least likely to wish to see it destroyed. - Politicians would be much more respectful of free enterprise (and preserving the conditions to make it prosper) if the taxpayers who actually work to create the nation's wealth had a louder voice. and, - The voice of permanent welfare addicts should be removed from the formulation of public policy, to check the unrestricted growth of the welfare state, and all of the social pathology it has created. |
|
Enough to reply but not explain. 
|
The federal government already prohibits checking ID at the polling place - you think they're going to let someone insist that only US citizens vote  California attempted that and got struck down - having to prove you're a US citizen to vote is un-Constitutional according to their courts. Makes sense as it's also been proved by the federal courts for California to close the border, light up the border, check students residence ... |
|
He's not talking about operating in agreement with the Constitution as it currently stands - obviously, as his proposals don't fit with either its letter or its spirit. He is putting forth his concept of an ideal system, not limited by our current laws and standards. Personally, if we're talking about ideal systems, I think there's a far better way of improving things, that doesn't rely on such drastic changes to the concept of voting. Specifically, allow no tax money gathered from the citizens of one state to be transferred to another state. The national government's spending would be limited to areas that are of national concern; the branches of the military, the circuit and national courts, the CDC, NASA (unless this last was privatized, but NASA actually produces innovations, so perhaps it should be retained). No Federal welfare programs, no Medicare/Medicaid, no farm bill, no pet projects that allow one area to leech off another. There are 50 states. Each one should be its own "petri dish," so to speak, with leeway on how they gather and spend their money. Income tax? Sales tax? Property tax? Leave it to the state government to decide how they'll get their funding. The Federal government's funding should be a flat percentage taken each state's revenue. If a state wants to have a comprehensive welfare program, it should be allowed to do so...but it must pay for it from its own tax base. The states that are the most parasite-friendly will see an influx of welfare-seekers and an exodus of productive taxpayers. If a state is going to create a socialist system, those who don't want to take part can escape to another state. The system will be self-correcting. |
I'm shocked that a person that espouses personal freedoms by posting on a 2nd amendment friendly gun board would even suggest such right depriving bullshit.  "Unfortunately, in my earlier thread, I had not thought it out in advance as carefully as I should have." I guess you still didn't. Just imagine if your were subjected to similar limitations by those that disagreed with you. I'd rather educate the left than subject them to MY ideals. |
Quoted:
No. Voting is a right. You shouldn't have to "register" to vote. It should be a serious Felony to vote in a way that would undermine the electoral process. One citizen, one vote-and that's it. One doesn't accidentally vote twice in an election, doesn't accidentally enroll people who aren't eligeable to vote etc.
No. No tests. People should be free to slit their own throats with candidates that reflect their own views.
Agreed on the one vote per election, the rest is unconstitutional.
While I appreciate that Veterans and Citizens who have sacrificed their time and health to their country with service in the Armed Forces, they have should have no greater access to Government than other citizens. It's called "The Service" for a reason. I will say that it should be a Constitutional requirement that anyone who seeks the office of the POTUS needs to be a person who has served time in the Military. It is reasonable to ask somoene who wants to be CINC should also be someone who has been in the military and understand how the machine works.
See above.
Disagree. One man, one vote.
First off, no able bodied people should be on Welfare in the first place. Being stuck with the system we have in place, I'll agree that no person on the dole should be able to vote in any election where the persons they vote may have an effect on the amount of welfare they draw. |
That is a fantastic idea. |
We tried this, it was our first constitution. Though the fed had to ASK for money as opposed to get a flat rate which made our fed way too weak. We weren't even able to pay for armies and such due to funding. I wholey agree with a flat rate. The self correcting nature of this system would own some polititions in the face pretty hard once all the rich left their respective states to go to the cheaper states. I can see it now... Year 2: "WTF... REVENUE DOWN 75%!!! UNPOSSIBLE!" 
|
|
I think it's absolutely hilarious that if we were to actually implement your idea, you would 100% guaranteed fail the civics test portion, and even if you somehow didn't, your voice would not be heard because your vote would not be worth the same as every body else's. Thanks for playing, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, no matter how much you deserve it... |
White men that own land. 
|
|
Just make the requirements the same as those for getting a ccw licence. If it is okay for your second amendment rights then it should be okay to apply it to voting. If it is not okay for your voting rights, then it should be removed as a requirement for ccw. ktm500 |
Aye, in the modern world you need a modern army, particularly if you want to be a superpower, so the national government does need an appropriate amount of revenue. Still, the majority of the money should be retained by the state-level governments, as most services would be provided and paid for by the state, with little to none paid for by the Feds. I don't know what the rate should be - 1/4th? 1/3rd? Include a provision that if there is excess money collected in a given fiscal year, it should be returned to the states in the same proportions that it was gathered - that should keep things level. I'm not sure what mechanism should be in place for gathering extra funds in the event of a war; there needs to be one, as war would obviously require more money than would be spent during normal peacetime years, but it needs to be defined tightly enough so that it cannot be misused or used endlessly.
 I thought it was "snowman's chance on the beach" ala "snowball's chance in hell."
|