My plan to save American democracy

[Patroklos]

It is always fun watching Aggie pretend he is an intellectual.

[C0ckney]

there is certainly something comical about claiming that democracy would 'work better' if only we could remove huge numbers if people from the political process. the problem of course is that aggie is serious...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney
there is certainly something comical about claiming that democracy would 'work better' if only we could remove huge numbers if people from the political process. the problem of course is that aggie is serious...

Most states already have restrictions on who can vote.

[C0ckney]

and how does, for example, not allowing children or foreign nationals to vote, affect the point being made in any way?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney
and how does, for example, not allowing children or foreign nationals to vote, affect the point being made in any way?

Actually felons can't vote in most states. Felons are more likely to vote for democrats.

Now I think it would be fair to make some restrictions for conservatives. But conservatives tend to be much more conformist and obedient than liberals. So we would have to make a restriction on some legal activity such as gun ownership. A lot of conservatives like to own several guns. We could make a voting restriction based on owning multiple guns. Then only a portion of conservatives would be eliminated from the voting process, but effectively it would make the system better.

I don't suggest that, but if say Texas, and maybe some other red states would like to seperate from the union I would not oppose it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by C0ckney
and how does, for example, not allowing children or foreign nationals to vote, affect the point being made in any way?

Well, the issue of residents who pay taxes but don't get to vote isn't the same as not letting the underage vote.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Most states already have restrictions on who can vote.

No argument for further restriction/exclusion.

[C0ckney]

hmmm.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, the issue of residents who pay taxes but don't get to vote isn't the same as not letting the underage vote.

of course, but it's easy to see why children are not allowed to vote. it's also easy to see why a state would not want non-citizens to vote in its elections, although of course some people may disagree with that restriction.

what aggie is talking about is removing a whole, poorly defined, group of people from the political process, based on some vague and woolly idea of democracy 'working better' or people being 'better off'.

kid, when someone is convicted of a crime society has decided that they are to be deprived of some of their rights as a result. the right to vote being just one example. whereas, you want to take away people's rights, because err...you don't like them much. great argument there...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney
kid, when someone is convicted of a crime society has decided that they are to be deprived of some of their rights as a result. the right to vote being just one example. whereas, you want to take away people's rights, because err...you don't like them much. great argument there...

I don't just dislike conservatives. I think that democracy works better when less of them vote. It's the exact same argument that conservatives use when restricting felons from voting. You think it's "society" making the restrictions, but it's actually people with authoritarian personalities (conservatives).

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't just dislike conservatives. I think that democracy works better when less of them vote.

which is the same thing in the context of this debate. fortunately, your opinion about such things is irrelevant in a democratic society.

It's the exact same argument that conservatives use when restricting felons from voting. You think it's "society" making the restrictions, but it's actually people with authoritarian personalities (conservatives).

no it is not, at all in fact. as a society we decide that when someone is convicted of a crime they receive a punishment for that and lose some of their rights. they may be deprived of their freedom of movement and association (prison), they may be deprived of property they have acquired via their criminal activities and they may be deprived of their right to vote. it's all part of the punishment for committing a crime, which is, after all, an act against society as a whole. i fail to see why this is hard to understand.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney
which is the same thing in the context of this debate. fortunately, your opinion about such things is irrelevant in a democratic society.

No. In fact I have friends and family that are conservative. Hell in Oklahoma you are a lonely man without friends who are conservative.

no it is not, at all in fact. as a society we decide that when someone is convicted of a crime they receive a punishment for that and lose some of their rights. they may be deprived of their freedom of movement and association (prison), they may be deprived of property they have acquired via their criminal activities and they may be deprived of their right to vote. it's all part of the punishment for committing a crime, which is, after all, an act against society as a whole. i fail to see why this is hard to understand.

I'm not saying that liberals don't believe in punishment. I'm saying that authoritarian elements within society support that particular laws that restrict felons from voting. Indeed, less authoritarian societies do not have such bans.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't just dislike conservatives. I think that democracy works better when less of them vote. It's the exact same argument that conservatives use when restricting felons from voting.

Except that you aim esp. to take down a certain part of the political spectrum, while the restrictions for felons go for them regardless of political background. They don't change the political landscape in general, as excluding only conservatives would, just as excluding only democrats or only communists would. Would you like it if somebody denies you the right to political participation on the ground that they just think your vote isn't good?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not saying that liberals don't believe in punishment. I'm saying that authoritarian elements within society support that particular laws that restrict felons from voting. Indeed, less authoritarian societies do not have such bans.

some societies allow prisoners to vote and some do not. the point though is that if they do, then it is part of the punishment that that particular society has for people who break the law, which as bebro rightly says applies to a person regardless of race, religion or political affiliation.

your idea on the other hand is based on your dislike of a certian (political) group of people voting.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro


Except that you aim esp. to take down a certain part of the political spectrum, while the restrictions for felons go for them regardless of political background. They don't change the political landscape in general, as excluding only conservatives would, just as excluding only democrats or only communists would. Would you like it if somebody denies you the right to political participation on the ground that they just think your vote isn't good?

I merely said that it would be fair to create a restriction on voting for those who own lots of guns. I didn't say I would restrict voting by conservatives as an entire group.

Also, you are naive to think that conservatives don't restrict felons from voting because felons would vote differently from them. Indeed, felons will vote differently from conservatives. As I mentioned conservatives tend towards more laws and stronger punishment than felons do. Also, conservatives judge felons harshly and tend to think that felons aren't equals.