4 ms·

Umm the 1700's in America were the era of needing to have land ownership to vote (more than half of white men couldn't vote), poll taxes, exclusion of blacks, n

• ColanR 7y ago
  However, that's orthogonal to the issue; documentation of your right to vote is not one of the requirements of possessing that right. (as parent said, "A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation.") It is a dramatic improvement that the people with the right to vote has been expanded since the 1700s, but what you said doesn't actually speak against the basic idea that documentation is not relevant to the exercise of ones rights. As an aside: once documentation is required, we enter a position where we do not have our rights until proven otherwise.
  • dymk 7y ago
    How do you prevent fraudulent voting without being able to tie a vote back to a real, documented person?
    • Spooky23 7y ago
      How do you tie a vote back to a single human (I’m unaware of what an unreal person is) without denying another’s right?
    • ghettoimp 7y ago
      Indelible ink or similar, perhaps? Maybe some fancy crypto scheme?
  • paulddraper 7y ago
    How is it irrelevant to their point? Property deeds and literacy tests are documentation, yes?
  • mieseratte 7y ago
    > However, that's orthogonal to the issue; documentation of your right to vote is not one of the requirements of possessing that right. According to whom exactly? As others have pointed out in this discussion, that's not how the US system was designed. There is no inalienable right to vote.
    • reaperducer 7y ago
      According to whom exactly? The 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
    • Spooky23 7y ago
      Amendments to the constitution have establish the right. As a society, we decided that tenants, people of non-white races, women, and 18-20 year olds should be allowed to vote. We also eliminated odious standards like counting then-slaves as 60% human.
      • ghettoimp 7y ago
        I'm no expert and could be missing something. But it doesn't look to me like we have an "inalienable" right to vote. Various amendments do say that our right to vote can't be revoked for certain specific reasons, e.g.,: - The 15th amendment prohibits denying the right to vote on certain grounds (race, color) but doesn't go beyond that. - The 19th prohibits denying the right to vote based on sex. - The 24th prohibits denying the right to vote (in certain federal elections) based on outstanding tax bills. - The 26th prohibits denying citizens over 18 the right to vote based on age. But this seems like a weirdly specific list. If the reason isn't on the list, is it still fair game? For instance, AFAIK some states don't let convicted felons vote.
        • Spooky23 7y ago
          I identify strongly as an advocate for democracy. We have a second amendment that talks about well-regulated militia broadly interpreted to mean all sorts of things, some I agree with, some I do not. Likewise, we have multiple, progressive amendments to the constitution with a clear goal of enabling voting to the broadest possible scope. I live in a state that requires that you be a citizen, age 18, and not be in prison or on parole. I think that’s a fair compromise over disqualification of felons, as you create 2nd tier of citizen by denying that right.
  • anigbrowl 7y ago
    It's orthogonal, but if you don't see how the shift in (the orthogonal) political power structures has affected the exercise of basic rights, then you probably won't see future violations of rights coming as effectively because you're not fully alert for them.
• paulddraper 7y ago
  Yeah, "old school" was very much for extensive voter qualifications like assets and literacy tests. In fact, that's the whole purpose of the now-awkward electoral college: state legislatures choosing knowledgeable electors to vote for president/VP. --- This an unpopular opinion, but I honestly think there's something to that. My state political party operates on a caucus system, where I don't directly vote for local, state, or federal candidates in the primary (ironically, president is the exception to this); rather I elect a district representative to attend the convention, speak with the candidates, and vote the best one. I don't have time/choose not to have time to do this same level of diligence, and like in many other areas, I am happy to delegate it to one of my known, trusted neighbors. I believe it produces a better, more intelligent, less hysterical media outcome. This is also why I'm not necessarily against non-pathological obstacles in voting. In 2018, my county did a (inexpensive) mail-only election. I wouldn't be surprised is the deadlines, etc. proved to be an obstacle. But....is it really that bad to have that small hoop for people to participate? I don't think so. --- P.S. You know poll taxes aren't taxes at polling stations, right? It just means "flat (non-proportional) tax".
  • Spooky23 7y ago
    Poll tax in context of this topic refers to one of the barriers in the Jim Crow south used to prevent black people from voting.