I teach college history. I’m well aware of what the founders thought about democracy (the term “founding fathers” is retarded, and i refuse to use it).
You know what else most of them believed?
They believed that a republic (most were hostile to democracy in the classical sense) survives best when votes are cast by property-holding white men.
And the idea was that people who were educated and informed would vote. While their views of who were informed are outdated, the general idea still holds: an uninformed populace that votes is not a democracy except in the most technical sense.
In the 21st century, the act of making voting voluntary, as well as making it a tiny bit of work, results in voters probably being better informed than the overall populace. Obviously, there are some who have a vested interest in changing that, and not by educating voters better. I’ve even seen TV glorify ignorant voting. “I haven’t though about who I’d vote for, but I voted, and that’s what counts.” That’s not democratic, that’s wannabe totalitarian. Some dictators haven’t even needed to fix elections because they knew they could count on the votes of the ignorant masses as long as they threw a few peanuts their way and “encouraged” them to vote, making it mandatory if necessary.
Voting is an act that requires no encouragement if people a) have something they feel they can vote for, and b) know what that something is. If you want more participation, then we need a better class of politician and a better media. Just urging people to go and vote without having any idea what they are voting for isn’t productive. It’s actually harmful.
Sure, aside from that little nitpick of white and male supremacy, they were dead on. No need to do more than gloss over that little bit.
Cite?
and c) voting is cost-free, such as making election day a national holiday, or having early voting everywhere, with voting locations convenient for everyone.
Agree there – we should get rid of the politicians who want to make voting more difficult.
It can be, but only when it helps Republicans win 
Seems to me that if you have good candidates and people who want to know about the issues confronting our country, then you don’t need to encourage voting. It will take care of itself. All of the people who don’t vote are either completely uninformed and don’t care, or they just don’t feel they have anyone they can support. I’m not sure what the virtue is in getting these people to cast votes. Educate them, interest them, and inspire them and they’ll vote.
But I get the impression that this isn’t actually what certain partisans want. And they aren’t particularly fans of a voting base that is patriotic and of good moral standing either. Thus the movement to get felons and non-citizens voting.
So you think government should have the power to determine who is of good moral character, and who is not?
Cite for a “movement” to get non-citizens voting?
Felons aren’t allowed to vote in most states, and they can only get their voting rights back under certain conditions. That’s how states decide who is of good moral character and it’s entirely rational and reasonable.
Only 11 states forbid felons from voting after their sentences are complete. Felons are allowed to vote, automatically, in all the others.
After serving their complete sentence, yes. Including probation and parole. But obviously it varies by state, as it should. I was just objecting to the idea that states cannot use objective means to decide who is of good moral character. Going by whether that person is currently in prison or on probation is a pretty good indicator that one is not in fact of good moral character.
We also disenfranchise for age. The idea being that until someone can legally be on their own, taking care of themselves in the real world, no matter how intelligent they are(and a lot of 16-year olds are better informed than the average person), they cannot cast a truly informed vote while relying on their parents for support.
My point is that there are reasons for the voting system we have, and contrary to belief in some quarters, it’s not because we’re trying to hold the Democratic Party back. Until they succeed in making it unnecessary through changes to the law, they will actually continue to have to persuade the public to support them, rather than counting on tens of millions of automatic votes.
That’s not a “movement” – that’s a single referendum from several years ago, and it’s only for certain local elections.
And this referendum was rejected.
Try again, or stop using words like “movement” in ridiculous ways.
The article cites many more examples of non-citizens already being allowed to vote and efforts to expand those voting rights elsewhere.
According to some prominent Republicans, this is exactly the reason for the voter ID requirements and other changes to voting laws, like restricting early voting.
It’s from 2004, and it cites a few municipalities that allow non-citizen voting for certain local elections, and multiple referenda that were rejected. It wasn’t a movement in 2004, and it certainly isn’t one now. Try again.
That’s because some Republicans are under the impression, with much justification, that Democrats favor these things because it gets the more votes. While I’m sure Democrats are motivated by that, it doesn’t actually work. All these years of Democratic efforts to expand voting have failed for the most part because they don’t address the actual reasons why people don’t vote: lack of interest.
The OP’s idea, outright bribery, would probably help, but that’s not a pro-democracy stance, as I’ve argued. It’s actually anti-democratic, at least given the traditional American understanding of how it’s supposed to work: that democracy can only survive with an informed and patriotic electorate.
Considering American history, and the overwhelmingly positive results of past efforts to combat voter suppression, I think you’re way, way off here.
I’m not a citizen and, while i don’t have a huge problem with not being able to vote, i also see basically no compelling reason why i should not be allowed to do so.
I am a legal resident, here with the authorization of the US government. I work, i pay exactly the same taxes as a US citizen earning the same income, i am subject to the same laws and the same limitations and, for good measure, i know more about the history of the United States than (conservatively) 98 percent of the American population.
I agree with most of what you said, but is your allegiance to the United States, or to another nation?
Gotta be careful, he’s going to vote for Putin.
Actual voter suppression reduced turnout, and ending that voter suppression increased turnout. A lot. Voter ID laws, ending early voting, etc., are not voter suppression. In order to be that, voters would actually have to be suppressed in a noticeable way. The effect of voter ID laws has been studied and there’s no evidence that turnout is decreased. Nor has early voting increased turnout.