Why Are Republicans Allowed To Vote?

[Bridget_Burke]

The question is why more sane people fail to get off their asses & vote. Even in Texas, we can do better than the Republican clowns holding state-wide offices.

[Martin_Hyde]

@BrainGlutton

But if they’re banned on the basis of willful ignorance?

Then a large portion of the GOP electorate would be unable to vote, but virtually the entire Democratic electorate would be unable to do so. As an old school white upper class pro-business Republican I’d be fine with losing our idiot votes–that we need to win elections against big labor and minorities that vote purely on party identification, in exchange for having the entire opposition electorate wiped out.

[Martin_Hyde]

@TonySinclair

My fault for not making myself clear. I understand that there are idiots who are not Republicans. And I understand that there is no constitutional requirement saying voters actually have to know anything.

I’m asking why that is. We give people tests before we allow them to drive a car, or operate a tattoo parlor. Why don’t we demand a constitutional amendment that requires people to pass a minimal test of knowledge before they select the leader of the free world?

Because of liberals. I’d be perfectly fine with an extremely restricted electorate, primarily restricted to propertied individuals with college degrees who have incomes above a certain threshold. I’ve never been ashamed of my position that an unlimited franchise leads to poor outcomes.

[Terr]

@Bridget_Burke

The question is why more sane people fail to get off their asses & vote. Even in Texas, we can do better than the Republican clowns holding state-wide offices.

I think it’s a misconception to think that the “sane” people fail to vote in any higher proportion than the “clowns”. And the answer to “why” is:

1. For state-wide offices and federal offices, the chances of one vote making a difference are small enough to be considered zero.

2. Considering (1), the only rational reason to vote is for “warm fuzzies”. It is very hard to get motivated to expend the effort to vote for the professional politicians (otherwise known as lying cheating scoundrels) that run for state-wide and federal offices.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Martin_Hyde

Because of liberals. I’d be perfectly fine with an extremely restricted electorate, primarily restricted to propertied individuals with college degrees who have incomes above a certain threshold. I’ve never been ashamed of my position that an unlimited franchise leads to poor outcomes.

So basically back to 19th Century England? To be frank, I’d rather have Donald Trump as President than this blatant oligarchy and plutocracy you advocate.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Terr

I think it’s a misconception to think that the “sane” people fail to vote in any higher proportion than the “clowns”. And the answer to “why” is:

1. For state-wide offices and federal offices, the chances of one vote making a difference are small enough to be considered zero.

2. Considering (1), the only rational reason to vote is for “warm fuzzies”. It is very hard to get motivated to expend the effort to vote for the professional politicians (otherwise known as lying cheating scoundrels) that run for state-wide and federal offices.

Your concern is noted.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Martin_Hyde

Then a large portion of the GOP electorate would be unable to vote, but virtually the entire Democratic electorate would be unable to do so. As an old school white upper class pro-business Republican I’d be fine with losing our idiot votes–that we need to win elections against big labor and minorities that vote purely on party identification, in exchange for having the entire opposition electorate wiped out.

I find it amusing that somehow being a college graduate or having a certain amount of income makes you “not ignorant”.

[Muffin]

The Competency Assessment Tool for Voting (CAT-V) looks at whether or not a person 1. understands the nature of voting, 2. understands the effect of voting, and 3. is able to make a choice.

If a person understands that voting leads to someone being elected, check off 1. If a person understands that a candidate will blow up the world if elected, check off 2. If a person decides to vote for the person who will blow up the world if elected, check off 3.

That, my friends, is why bat-shit crazy pubbies get to vote. Your best option is to distract them.

[Alessan]

Both parties would lower the eligible voter pool to 10% of the population if they could. That’s because it’s much easier to pander to 5% of the country than it is to 50%.

[Little_Nemo]

@Terr

Only if the presumption is that the ignorant would vote against you.

Only if the presumption is that once educated they will switch the vote to you. And if that’s true, then the motive exists whether there is a disenfranchisement of the ignorant or not.

I was approaching it from the other direction. I was saying that if it was possible to disenfranchise people because they failed to meet some intelligence standard - even if this was somehow an impartial objective standard - then there would be a motive for promoting ignorance. Smart people would have an exclusive franchise and educating more people would dilute their power.

[El_Kabong]

@TonySinclair

The latest PPP poll (so new that there’s no link yet, but their rep announced the results on this evening’s Rachel Maddow show) shows that among Republicans, Ted Cruz is leading Barack Obama by double digits.

Not in favorability. Not in who would make the best President.

No, an August 28 survey of Republicans by a well respected polling organization shows that, even after all the proof provided, only 29% of Republicans believe that Barack Obama was born in America, while 40% believe that Ted Cruz was born in America. Cruz, as he freely admits, was actually born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father, and only recently renounced his Canadian citizenship.

Lies. His name is Ted Cruise, second cousin of the famed actor and Scientologist, and he was born in America. North America. You could look it up.

Why don’t these so-called journalists even do the most basic research any more?

The same poll found that only 14% of Reps believe Obama is a Christian, while 54% believe he is a Muslim.

What percentage of muslims believe Obama is a muslim? Seems like they’d be the ones with the authority here.

So, I repeat, why are these people allowed to vote?

Well, they’re allowed to procreate, so why stop there?

[kaylasdad99]

@Martin_Hyde

Because of liberals. I’d be perfectly fine with an extremely restricted electorate, primarily restricted to propertied individuals with college degrees who have incomes above a certain threshold. I’ve never been ashamed of my position that an unlimited franchise leads to poor outcomes.

e.g. see: current makeup of Senate and HoR, by party…

:dubious:

[davida03801]

Let’s bring back the property criteria. You own real estate you can vote, you don’t take a walk on election day.

It would be just as valid a point as the OP.

[John_DiFool]

@TonySinclair

I’m asking why that is. We give people tests before we allow them to drive a car, or operate a tattoo parlor. Why don’t we demand a constitutional amendment that requires people to pass a minimal test of knowledge before they select the leader of the free world?

“Define and discuss the effects that poll taxes and literacy tests had on elections.”

With “friends” like you, who needs enemies?

[BobLibDem]

@Velocity

Isn’t this like the literacy tests that some people claimed were a way of disenfranchising black voters?

Some people claimed? More like what everyone knew. Take the test given to Louisiana black voters in the 1960s. Get the idea?

[don_t_ask]

Surely if they introduced a test it would end up a Catch 22 situation. To vote in the election you have to prove that you are knowledgeable and not insane; but if you wish to sit a test to enable you to vote for any of the available candidates you are either stupid or insane.

[Terr]

@davida03801

Let’s bring back the property criteria. You own real estate you can vote, you don’t take a walk on election day.

How much RE is enough to vote? If I own a 1/10,000th partial share in a house?

[BobLibDem]

@davida03801

Let’s bring back the property criteria. You own real estate you can vote, you don’t take a walk on election day.

It would be just as valid a point as the OP.

This is batshit crazy. Everybody pays property tax, whether they own the property or rent. In the case of rentals, the tax is paid out of the rents collected, yet the landlord pockets the tax break.

[Onomatopoeia]

@Terr

Realistically, literacy tests would not do anything much. The literacy level of the test would have to be minimal in order not to be too onerous, and utter ignoramuses probably already don’t vote. And that minuscule portion of them that does vote is probably split fairly evenly between D and R.

I think I disagree with this. I have no cite so I’ll have to rustle up some data, but it seems to me that on the Democratic side, the more ignorant vote less, whereas on the Republican side, the more ignorant vote more. The question is which is worse?

[D_Odds]

@BrainGlutton

But if they’re banned on the basis of willful ignorance?

If I were Emperor of the Milky Way, and I could figure out how to do this (note that I’m an independent and despise both parties fairly equally), this would be my way (for the elected positions under me who do most of the heavy lifting while I’m off fishing and enjoying being a benevolent monarch).

@Little_Nemo

Because it would be unjust to have people living under a political system which they do not get to participate in.

On a practical level, if people are disenfranchised for being ignorant then there is a motive for keeping people ignorant. But if those ignorant people have a voice in government then there’s a motive for educating them. And a society with a broadly educated population is better than a society with just an educated elite.

Wow. Are the roses especially red where you live? We actually live in a world where ignorant people have a voice in a number of governments, and what we have is a race to the bottom.

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I find it amusing that somehow being a college graduate or having a certain amount of income makes you “not ignorant”.

Gotta agree with this. For proof, see “House of Representatives” and “Senate”.