According to your opinion, who should NOT be allowed to vote in US Presidential elections?

[ZombieHorde]

Do you agree with the current laws on the subject? Would you like to see more voting restrictions? Would you like to see less voting restrictions?

Should non-citizens be allowed to vote?

Should felons be allowed to vote?

Should people with below average IQ be allowed to vote?

Should 16-year-old citizens be allowed to vote?

Should 13-year-old citizens be allowed to vote?

Should those who don't pay taxes be allowed to vote?

Should millionaires be allowed to vote?

Should nude people be allowed to vote?

Should everyone be allowed to vote?

Should no one be allowed to vote?

How would you determine who can and can not vote?

[Incitatus]

1. All US citizens nt

[ZombieHorde]

3. Any age limits? nt

[tekisui]

4. I agree, all citizens. There should be an age limit, but

age limits are inherently arbitrary. There are very engaged and active young teenagers. It is, in a way, unfair to them to not be able to vote.

[Incitatus]

18. Of course, there should be an age limit.

If it was 1 year old, it would the parents doing the voting. I think the current limit of 18 years is just fine. It is when you are legally an adult and can serve in the armed forces. I also think the drinking age should be lowered to 18.

[The Magistrate]

2. We Need The Australian System, Sir: Voting Required, With A Fine If You Do Not

Applicable to all citizens eighteen or older.

[ZombieHorde]

5. Interesting. The arguments both for and against that write themselves.

Freedom of choice versus the importance of participation.

[The Magistrate]

21. It Eliminates, Sir, The Most Distressing Elements Of Our Campaigning

Namely the emphasis placed on crafting a particular turn-out, by means ranging from interference with registration to producing discouragement and distaste for the political process itself among voters in certain demographics or areas.

'Freedom of choice', in the matter of voting or not voting, is not really available: if one does not vote, one simply endorses the candidate who gets the larger number of votes actually cast, whether one wants to or not.

Under our present system, it is nonesense to speak of 'majority rule', and certainly of any 'mandate' of popular support. It is unusual for even so much as one third of the populace eligible to vote to have cast ballots for the candidate who wins an election. The Republican 'mandate' of 2010 rests on the votes of barely one fifth of eligible voters.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Turnout operations aren't all negative, though

Campaigns have field organizers whose job it is to call and knock on doors for 12 hours a day and to recruit volunteers to do the same. Some of this is focused on persuading undecided voters, but most of it is for targeting voters who are less likely to turn out. For a variety of reasons, Democratic campaigns do this far more than Republican ones. Chief among them is that Democrats have a nearly monolithic voting block (African Americans) that they can target. Republicans have a similarly monolithic block in evangelical Christians but don't need to bother getting them to turn out, because the church does the work for them.

[The Magistrate]

24. True, Sir, But Both 'Get Out The Vote' And Vote Suppression Operations Have The Same Goal

Both aim to shape the electorate by selectively altering the demographic composition of those who actually turn out to the polls. In short, both aim to rig the game to some extent. Under our present system, this is how campaigns must operate, because experience shows victory goes to the side that can do the better job of turning out its adherents and discouraging or otherwise excluding the other side's adherents from showing up at the polling station. No one really makes an honest attempt to poll the people, the adult citizens, of the country.

[Sheepshank]

31. Having originally come from Australia

I see merits of required voter turn out. Of course, once one gets into that little voting booth, what they mark or do not mark on the card is a huge matter of choice. They have what's called "donkey" votes. In essence marking the ballot as to make it invalid...marking every candidate or no candidates.

So really the law merely requires everyone to show up at the polling booth, does not require a valid vote.

But of other significance is that people do tend to get resentful when mandated to do anything. I am then not as surprised that the effect is a population that doesn't seem as politically engaged as here in the USA. Voting to many is almost a chore.

Then there is the matter of a much smaller population so high turn out is essential.


eta almost forgot the OP...All citizens and legal residents of driving age should also be able to vote.

[The Magistrate]

34. Even Here, Sir, In Our Present System, We Have Voters Who Do That

People 'write in' Mickey Mouse, or Heywood Jablomie, and similar deliberate invalidation of the ballot.

As a point of interest, the sort of secret ballot used today was known in political science textbooks here a hundred years ago as 'the Australian ballot'....

[leftynyc]

56. Just curious

What is the fine for not voting in Australia?

[Amimnoch]

26. Another method would be the Brazilian method of requirement

No fine if you don't vote, but if you don't vote you loose almost all benefits of the government you chose not to participate in electing.

- If you don't vote, no Social security benefits.
- No unemployment benefits.
- No tax benefits (i.e. no earned income credits, no deductions at all allowed (including deductions for mortgage interest)
- No medicare/medicade
- In the event of natural disaster, or other event, no government provided benefits (above and beyond basic humanitarian of course.. food/shelter/basic medical.. but no government assistance for rebuilding.

In Brazil, these methods have been very effective in getting very high voter turnout.

What's more, if we follow the Brazilian model, it wouldn't have to even be "heavily enforced" but just the potential threat has gotten Brazilian elections to have turnouts over 80%. In fact, it's very rarely actually enforced in Brazil, but just the possibility of it is enough to get the citizens to support elections in droves MUCH higher than our own election model.

[thelordofhell]

37. You hear that Libertarians!! Get out the vote!!

:rofl:

[grillo7]

22. I think that's an interesting idea...

although, I wonder how well that would work out for us? How hardened are ideological lines among most non-voters? Not very, I imagine. I wonder if it would increase interest in the process, or just cause people who already don't care about politics to choose the person they've seen on television the most.

[The Magistrate]

33. There Is Something To That, Sir

There are various explanations for people routinely not voting. Some maintain it owes to complete disinterest in politics, some that it is a reasoned response to the futility of a system stocked with tweedle-dums and tweedle-dees, some that it is a 'vote of confidence' by people who figure that whoever wins, things will go well enough. Whatever the actual motives and their proportions might be, however, it is fair to state that those who habitually do not vote can be classed as 'undecided' voters, and would be wooed in a manner similar to the courting of such at present. there would be this difference, however. In a system that removed the reward for convincing people not to vote, more emphasis would have to be placed on giving people reasons to vote for you, rather than giving people reasons to not vote for your opponent.

[CTyankee]

44. I'm not a fan of government enforced voting. It seems to me that if you

grant the government that power, you might be on a slippery slope towards government telling you HOW to vote. Not that it would be a certainty, it's just a little "wise" fear I have...

[The Magistrate]

45. Not Really, Sir

If a government intends telling you how to vote, they will manage it, whatever the apparent regulations are.

Developed countries with such regulations at present are far from one-party states..

[CTyankee]

49. Oh, I know. But the way things are going in our great democracy these days

I can't help be fearful...I hope I AM wrong...

[The Magistrate]

50. The Course Being Taken Here, Sir, is Preventing People From Voting

As it is paying off for the reactionaries, there is no reason to presume they will change course....

[CTyankee]

51. I'm pretty convinced that "bait and switch" is the real game that the

reactionaries are playing. They won in the mid term election because they were scaring people that Obama was cutting their Medicare (not mentioning that it was the Medicare Advantage plans, not Medicare itself, that Obama had targeted). Now they have turned around with plans to abolish Medicare and install a "voucher" program. That is what I call "bait and switch."

Judging by what the reaction has been "back home" to the Ryan plan, I'd say they won't try that one again.

[cliffordu]

52. NOW you're talking.

[Tx4obama]

6. Every American citizen age 18+ should be allowed to vote.

That answers all the question above.

And I think that ALL folks (that chose to vote) in ALL states should vote via paper ballot by mail.

[LiberalFighter]

27. I support this I think 99%

I support felons voting but only if they are not in prison. Anyone in prison should not be allowed to vote. But once they are out their right should be given back. I think it is unconstitutional to punish someone after they have served their time.

[tularetom]

7. More or less. No. No.

No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
WTF?
No.
No.
Flip a coin.

[Keith Bee]

8. The OP

(Come on: Like you didn't see THAT coming!) }(

[ZombieHorde]

11. Well, I live in Montana, so my Presidential vote doesn't really count. nt

[gateley]

9. Republicans. nt

[onehandle]

10. Birthers. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. All non-incarcerated US citizens over 18 years old with primary residence in the United States

[ZombieHorde]

13. Why would you restrict the incarcerated? Additional punishment? nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. There is an argument that, by committing a serious crime, they have shown themselves irresponsible

The UK has a debate on this at the moment - no-one in prison is allowed to vote now, but the European Court of Human Rights (which can act as a sort of Supreme Court for us, interpreting our laws against the European Declaration of Human Rights) has said a universal ban is not allowed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/12/prisoners-vote-government-loses-appeal

The government is talking about giving the vote to prisoners with short sentences, but they seem to think British public opinion is firmly against giving any prisoners the vote, so will make it a very short time. I think it ought to be something like "anyone with under 5 years to run of their maximum possible sentence can vote" - because they will be out when the government elected could still be in power.

MPs (including European Parliament representatives) are allowed to serve a prison term of up to one year and continue to hold their position and draw a salary (one of my MEPs did so, after a 6 month sentence for benefit fraud, a few years ago). But they wouldn't be allowed to vote in an election.

[veganlush]

14. anyone who can recite the names of cast members

of jersey shore, American idol, etc...

[ZombieHorde]

16. Funny. nt

[krawhitham]

15. Republicans

[rury]

20. Republicans, Birthers and Tea Partiers

[woo me with science]

17. Zombies.

They will just vote in the brain eaters.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. All citizens over the age of 18 years

[Bluenorthwest]

28. All citizens over 18 years old

nt

[TheKentuckian]

29. Everyone 18 and up, including prisoners. 13 and up may vote with passage of a basic civics and

Constitution test but would not be required by law to participate.

Alternatively, 13-17 would have no test but their vote would only count for half.
I don't think we should be setting the example to young people that it isn't their job to vote or that is something that "parents" do.

Everyone voting (including prisoners) keeps down the divide and conquer tactics as well as suppression efforts and would tend to give us more representative candidates rather than the cynical campaigns we see today that focus on getting out the base and discouraging the opposition while stacking up corporate powered war chests.

I'd also like to break the monopoly on the process that the two primary parties have. They have no constitutional role and as such should have no systemic advantages to running.

[NYC Liberal]

30. All citizens 18 years and older who are not incarcerated.

Also, I would enforce the 14th Amendment:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

imagine if that had been enforced after Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004.

[Phx_Dem]

32. U.S. citizens over the age of 18. n/t

[craigmatic]

35. People who work for corporations because it's equivalent to voting twice.

[ZombieHorde]

39. Ha! nt

[Phx_Dem]

36. dupe

[Arugula Latte]

38. Only cat people should be allowed to vote.

:)

[ZombieHorde]

40. Corporate elites will ensure cats cost one-million dollars or more. nt

[Arugula Latte]

42. Worth every penny!

:)

[ZombieHorde]

43. I think you have more pennies than I. nt

[Arkana]

41. All US Citizens over 18 should be allowed to vote.

If you are a citizen you have the right to cast a ballot in elections. Plain and simple.

[saras]

46. Pretty much everyone

Citizens - it depends. If a country has a habit of having a substantial of non-citizens living there permanently and working, they should be able to vote on issues having to do with how they live. If you don't like that, then don't have non-citizens do your work.

Felons - I think 'felons' is a bad category to take votes away for. I think there are some crimes involving betraying the public trust that perhaps deserve losing one's vote (I think most of the banksters qualify), but I don't think a single violent incident, theft, or especially something innocuous like dealing weed necessarily calls for losing one's vote.

Half of all of us are below average IQ. IQ is a single measure of a multiple-factor phenomenon. IQ is invariably biased, both culturally and sociologically (class). There's no evidence that someone with a measured higher IQ votes in any way better for the well-being of the country than someone with a lower one. Just because joining the Tea Party lowers your IQ, doesn't mean that low IQ people automatically join the Tea Party. I'd say that if you can get to the polling place and vote, then you're smart enough to vote.

Sixteen years old? If you're living alone, you should get to vote. At any age. If you don't like that, don't tolerate a society that produces homeless kids.

Thirteen? see above. Of course, I'd prefer a society that provides safe, legal, inexpensive, indestructible living places for any adolescent that's having trouble living at home, in which case there might be a substantial number of thirteen-year-old voters.

Don't pay taxes? I don't see that it has anything to do with voting, unless the not paying taxes is a substantial criminal conspiracy (i.e. a business with employees and a physical location). If you're poor enough to not have to pay taxes, why should this cause you to lose your vote?

Millionaires? Absolutely. But only one vote.

Nude people? You have to weigh the local culture - if it intimidates others and prevents them from voting, I'd disallow it. Other places, you might actually attract more voters this way, in which case I'd allow for at least a few, well-advertised nude voting sites. On the other hand, I live in a mail-in voting state, and I can be nude, or dress like Gwar, when I vote.

How would I determine? I have a fondness for constitutionally limited republics, if the majority are dedicated to having the government work properly. So I'd encode the widest possible enfranchisement in the constitution, and have clear exceptions for actions like treason, or institutional fraud, or bribery, that are clearly aimed at not merely breaking a law but harming the legal system itself. Yep, this has to be interpreted in real-time, and will likely be interpreted wrongly at times. That's the way it goes.

[ZombieHorde]

48. Allowing non-citizens who work within the country to vote in US Presidential elections is

interesting.

[PufPuf23]

47. Everyone is always nude somewhere (beneath your clothes)

1. Age 18 citizens except some felons and those legally mentally incompetent as determined by a court.
2. Voting required by mail with a carbon for the voter with fine for non-participation.
3. Choices include "None of the Above" - should "None of the Above" win, new election with new candidates./
4. Felons that have paid their debt to society regain vote except felons that have committed political crimes (election fraud , election financing, etc) or crimes against humanity (war, terrorism).
5. Transparent vote counting - I would suggest the counters of paper ballots be in a gymnasium or other suitable space open to the public.
6. No "rolling" reportage of results because of time zone changes or partial reports; only final tally reported.
7. Two term limit for 4 and 6 year positions; four term limit for 2 year positions; maximum 30 years total in elected positions.

[Blue_Tires]

53. This is just my opinion, but

Anyone convicted of election jackassery (caging, intimidation, tampering, fraud, "lost and found" votes, irregular counting, rigging, etc.) should lose their right permanently.

[RandomThoughts]

54. That is a good question.

[leftynyc]

55. All US citizens over 18

On the felon question, I'm okay with not being able to vote when you're in jail but once you've served your time, you get to vote.