Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:24 PM
Original message
According to your opinion, who should NOT be allowed to vote in US Presidential elections?
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Incitatus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. All US citizens nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Any age limits? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Incitatus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. Of course, there should be an age limit.
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 12:06 AM by Incitatus
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. We Need The Australian System, Sir: Voting Required, With A Fine If You Do Not
Applicable to all citizens eighteen or older.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Interesting. The arguments both for and against that write themselves.
Freedom of choice versus the importance of participation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. It Eliminates, Sir, The Most Distressing Elements Of Our Campaigning
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 12:39 AM by The Magistrate
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #21
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #23
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #21
31. Having originally come from Australia
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 10:12 AM by Sheepshank
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #31
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'....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #34
56. Just curious
What is the fine for not voting in Australia?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amimnoch Donating Member (377 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thelordofhell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. You hear that Libertarians!! Get out the vote!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grillo7 Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #22
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #44
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..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #45
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #49
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....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #50
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
52. NOW you're talking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. Every American citizen age 18+ should be allowed to vote.
Edited on Sat Apr-23-11 11:32 PM by Tx4obama

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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. More or less. No. No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
WTF?
No.
No.
Flip a coin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Keith Bee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. The OP
(Come on: Like you didn't see THAT coming!) }(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Well, I live in Montana, so my Presidential vote doesn't really count. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
9. Republicans. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. Birthers. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. All non-incarcerated US citizens over 18 years old with primary residence in the United States
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Why would you restrict the incarcerated? Additional punishment? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #13
25. There is an argument that, by committing a serious crime, they have shown themselves irresponsible
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 05:39 AM by muriel_volestrangler
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/prisoner...

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. anyone who can recite the names of cast members
of jersey shore, American idol, etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Funny. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krawhitham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-23-11 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. Republicans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rury Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Republicans, Birthers and Tea Partiers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
17. Zombies.
They will just vote in the brain eaters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
19. All citizens over the age of 18 years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
28. All citizens over 18 years old
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
32. U.S. citizens over the age of 18. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
35. People who work for corporations because it's equivalent to voting twice.
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 10:40 AM by craigmatic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Ha! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
36. dupe
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 11:57 AM by Phx_Dem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
38. Only cat people should be allowed to vote.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Corporate elites will ensure cats cost one-million dollars or more. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Worth every penny!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. I think you have more pennies than I. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
41. All US Citizens over 18 should be allowed to vote.
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 01:08 PM by Arkana
If you are a citizen you have the right to cast a ballot in elections. Plain and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Allowing non-citizens who work within the country to vote in US Presidential elections is
interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
54. That is a good question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC