Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the vast majority agree with the idea. The big, big problem: The same politicians that are accustomed to getting elected with the current campaign fundraising system would actually have to pass laws banning what all of them are already doing. Be kinda like a master thief passing laws against stealing, don't you think?
I would rather requiring a "knowledge test" to vote. I believe that would have a better overall effect, and would be far cheaper.
Not only is this incredibly stupid, but it has nothing to do with campaign finance reform. Don't derail the thread with some nonsense that would do nothing to alleviate some of the more corrupt aspects of our electoral process.
As for those of you who have simply given up on this issue, why involve yourself in politics at all, aside from the sideshow aspect? If we live in a capitalist system where our elected officials can not only be bought and sold, but often rely on this sort of elite patronage in order to get elected in the first place, why should America even feign at being a democracy?
People hem and haw when someone throws around a word like oligarchy, but if we simply accept the fact that special interests can easily convert their capital into power and influence in our political system, how can we avoid such a conclusion? There are obviously some politicians who feel this is an issue that needs correcting, but I feel as though we don't support them like we should, given the importance of this topic.
Illegal? Anti-American? Do you know anything about the history of America?
First, a knowledge test is not illegal, what exactly would be making it illegal?
You would need to provide a lot more information about the specifics of the test, but more than likely it would get shut down as disenfranchising minority voters.
Quote:
Secondly, in the beginning, only white land-owners had the right to vote. It took a very long time before everyone else got a right to vote.
Indeed. American ideals change with the times. I'm referring to the present day. I'm sure you don't want to see a return to only white landing owning males being allowed to vote.
Quote:
More importantly, no one necessarily has the right to vote anyway. The states regulate voting, voting isn't really mentioned in the constitution. The amendments that protect peoples voting rights, they don't actually give those people the right to vote, they just simply make it illegal to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, creed, etc. Which is why felons don't have the right to vote, because they aren't a protected class.
Eligible persons (generally legal citizens 18 or older) absolutely "necessarily [have] the right to vote." That doesn't mean that that right can't be taken away, however, such as after having been convicted of a felony as you mention.
Also as far voting being a state issue, the Voting Rights Act requires southern states to seek the approval of the Department of Justice before enacting changes in voting procedures.
You would need to provide a lot more information about the specifics of the test, but more than likely it would get shut down as disenfranchising minority voters.
My proposal would be to have an American history and basic political knowledge test. Where study materials would be provided for all voting applicants free of charge. The test would make someone eligible to vote for a span of 8 years.
Quote:
Eligible persons (generally legal citizens 18 or older) absolutely "necessarily [have] the right to vote." That doesn't mean that that right can't be taken away, however, such as after having been convicted of a felony as you mention.
No they do ****ing not, stop saying **** when you don't know what you are talking about. Please go read before talking, because your misinformation is completely destroying the integrity of this forum.
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. " - 26th Amendment to the constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febtober
Also as far voting being a state issue, the Voting Rights Act requires southern states to seek the approval of the Department of Justice before enacting changes in voting procedures.
If there was something unconstitutional in all of this, this is probably it.
There is not a single amendment or section anywhere in the constitution that would prohibit a test before being allowed to vote. There are parts of the constitution that do prohibit discrimination by race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, and age. But nothing prevents a test.
What they will attempt to do to stop the test, is try to prove that the test is "culturally biased", and they will attempt to prove this case because "blacks won't pass it in the same proportions as whites". But just because black people or young people or women can't pass a test in the same proportions as old white men, doesn't mean it is a biased test. It just means they should read the material so they can actually pass it. If they read the materials and still can't pass it, they are stupid. And stupid ignorant idiots should not be voting for anything.
It increased problems, they created a set of regulations 6 gazillion pages long dienfranchising those that didn't have 6 gaziilion dollars to pay a lawyer to decipher it. I don't know about other areas of the country but where I live once this passed powerful politicians were using as a means to eliminate other candidates by getting them removed from the ballot on minor technicalities.
Campaign finance reform requires a top to bottom approach starting with simplifying it so the average citizen isn't going to run afoul of the law because they didn't dot their I's and cross their t's.
I think the vast majority agree with the idea. The big, big problem: The same politicians that are accustomed to getting elected with the current campaign fundraising system would actually have to pass laws banning what all of them are already doing. Be kinda like a master thief passing laws against stealing, don't you think?
What has to happen, seems like it must come from the people. The Net gives us an avenue, if we choose to use it. I kind of hope this initiative takes some root.
For all the ideological squabbles on this board, there has to be something that we can all agree on. Our politicians act as though they are responsible to their wealthy patrons first, and the general population second. In order to remain in power, they often resort to kowtowing to wealthy donors who funnel money into their campaigns in return for influence over their actions in Washington.
This has been an issue raised by both Republicans and Democrats, and back in 2002 John McCain and Russ Feingold cosponsored the BCRA, which sought to regulate campaign financing by limiting the role of soft money. Soft money represents contributions which are unlimited and can come from virtually anywhere.
The act, which hardly solved the problem, was subsequently weakened by the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The decision allows corporations and labor unions to spend as much money as they want on advertisements for candidates, via recourse to the First Amendment. Money is free speech, so if you don't have it, don't expect to be heard.
I'll also note that in 1976, the government launched a program which provided presidential candidates with government funds if they agreed not to use private funds or their own resources. Obama was the first President to turn down these funds since the program was implemented, and this is after he promised he wouldn't. He won't be the last, and we'll continue to have cronies for leaders if things don't change.
You have a serious problem and there are only a few ways you can attack the problem and eliminate it.
The first method is to start with the US Constitution and begin enforcing it at the State level. States are sovereign entities, which means money coming in from out-of-State is illegal if used for campaign contributions.
Seriously, if you lived in Indiana, why would you want or allow people in New York, Vermont or California peddling influence in elections in your State?
Surely you can see where more wealthy States could actually cause harm to less economically stable States by influencing their candidates and ballot issues.
Why would you allow someone like George Soros to influence elections in your State, when doesn't even live there?
So the answer is an amendment to the State constitution barring such activities.
Your State legislators are never going to bite the hand that feeds them, so that would have to be a grass-roots movement. Set up a 503 group (easy to do), set up a web-site, recruit donors and volunteers, gather signatures for a petition and put it on the ballot (and then watch the 60-odd Olde Tyme Big Power Money Families who run your country and the corporations run around like a raped ape frothing at the mouth).
Corporations are not people (expect for tax purposes where they are taxed as an individual) and they have neither a right nor an expectation of free speech.
You can enact a constitutional amendment that bars any person from contributing to a candidate or a ballot issue unless they are eligible to vote in that election.
You can do the same thing at the State level. Once you start enforcing your State's sovereignty, you can amend the State constitution so that no one may contribute to the election campaign of a political candidate or a ballot issue unless they are eligible to vote. That would also have the same effect as keeping foreign influence out of your elections at the municipal, county and State level.
At the national level, you'll need to organize with other groups in other States. It's a foregone conclusion that no member of the House or Senate will support it or introduce a bill to be law, and even if one should do that, the bill would be tabled in committee and never get floored for debate or voting.
So you'll have to call a Constitutional Convention to do that.
My proposal would be to have an American history and basic political knowledge test. Where study materials would be provided for all voting applicants free of charge. The test would make someone eligible to vote for a span of 8 years.
What does a knowledge of American history have to do with anything? Sorry buddy, you have no say on the upcoming proposal to enact a 1% sales tax to fund police salaries because you didn't know who Henry Clay was.
Quote:
No they do ****ing not, stop saying **** when you don't know what you are talking about. Please go read before talking, because your misinformation is completely destroying the integrity of this forum.
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. " - 26th Amendment to the constitution.
Everyone that fulfills the basic requirements (age, residency, etc...) has the right to vote by default. This can be taken away under certain circumstances such as committing a felony. I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about on this one.
Quote:
If there was something unconstitutional in all of this, this is probably it.
Too bad it was recently renewed for another 25 years. Certain states must seek approval from the federal government to change their election procedures. Therefore elections are not an entirely state issue.
Quote:
There is not a single amendment or section anywhere in the constitution that would prohibit a test before being allowed to vote. There are parts of the constitution that do prohibit discrimination by race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, and age. But nothing prevents a test.
In the constitution no, in the Voting Rights Act, yes.
Quote:
What they will attempt to do to stop the test, is try to prove that the test is "culturally biased", and they will attempt to prove this case because "blacks won't pass it in the same proportions as whites". But just because black people or young people or women can't pass a test in the same proportions as old white men, doesn't mean it is a biased test.
Actually that's exactly what it means. Your proposal is basically a souped up literacy test and would never fly. I'm not saying that there aren't any merits at all to it, but good luck telling the guy who works three jobs that he now has to take time out of what's left of his day to study for something he already has the right to do.
What does a knowledge of American history have to do with anything? Sorry buddy, you have no say on the upcoming proposal to enact a 1% sales tax to fund police salaries because you didn't know who Henry Clay was.
I am not going to say that a person absolutely needs a grasp of American history in order to make decisions that might affect him. I am saying that a great many people seem to have no concept of history whatsoever. And having a grasp of history is utterly necessary to be able to make good decisions.
For instance, take the framers of the constitution. Our wonderful constitution that created this beacon of freedom and changed the world. What basis was our constitution formed? Why were the framers so adamant about creating a Republic? Why were they so opposed to democracy? From where did they draw their conclusions? The reality is, our constitution is nothing more than the outcome of history itself. Without our knowledge of the past, we would have been doomed to repeat it, and George Washington probably would have become King, and America would have stayed a pile of crap, probably reconquered by Britain in 1812.
There is nothing I wish more, than for all people to read and understand history. The vast majority of Americans know nothing of history, or know nothing more than the biased history that they were taught in our subsidized and government controlled public education system. Very few people have any actual interest to independently learning anything more about history. And as Orwellian as it is, without proper understanding of history, the people are easily controlled, because reality is shaped through history.
Everyone that fulfills the basic requirements (age, residency, etc...) has the right to vote by default. This can be taken away under certain circumstances such as committing a felony. I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about on this one.
Did you even read the quote?
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. "
You seem to misunderstand that quote. No one actually has the right to vote at all. No where in the constitution is there anything that gives anyone a "right to vote". The states are in control of the voting process in their own states, and they could pass "almost" any legislation regulating the right to vote as they deem necessary. The restrictions on the states in regards to voting don't actually provide for a "right to vote", they only make it illegal for the states to restrict voting on account of "race, color, sex, previous servitude" and it also outlaws a "poll tax".
So anything that doesn't discriminate based on these factors would be considered perfectly constitutional.
Where you seem to want to draw your conclusions is off the "voting rights act of 1965". Which would later be upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional. But I am confused on exactly what makes it constitutional? Where in the constitution does the Federal government have authority to regulate voting rights in the states? No where, except that the Supreme court decided that since there is a "long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of their race", that any such test must forever be illegal.
Regardless of how I feel about racism, I don't believe that the existence of racism suddenly gives the federal government absolute authority to do practically anything it wants. Regardless of the merit.
"by providing that some of the States cannot pass state laws or adopt state constitutional amendments without first being compelled to beg federal authorities to approve their policies, so distorts our constitutional structure of government as to render any distinction drawn in the Constitution between state and federal power almost meaningless. One of the most basic premises upon which our structure of government was founded was that the Federal Government was to have certain specific and limited powers and no others, and all other power was to be reserved either "to the States respectively, or to the people." Certainly if all the provisions of our Constitution which limit the power of the Federal Government and reserve other power to the States are to mean anything, they mean at least that the States have power to pass laws and amend their constitutions without first sending their officials hundreds of miles away to beg federal authorities to approve them. Moreover, it seems to me that part 5 of this act, which gives federal officials power to veto state laws they do not like is in direct conflict with the clear command of our Constitution that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." I cannot help but believe that the inevitable effect of any such law which forces any one of the States to entreat federal authorities in far-away places for approval of local laws before they can become effective is to create the impression that the State or States treated in this way are little more than conquered provinces. And if one law concerning voting can make the States plead for this approval by a distant federal court or the United States Attorney General, other laws on different subjects can force the States to seek the advance approval not only of the Attorney General but of the President himself or any other chosen members of his staff. It is inconceivable to me that such a radical degradation of state power was intended in any of the provisions of our Constitution or its Amendments....
I feel like that line is really the state of this country. The states are nothing more than conquered provinces of the American federal empire. Grats idiots.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
