I just voted!!!

AdGator02 · Post by **AdGator02** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:02 am

haven't voted yet. Can't even get in the parking lots of the early voting places here. I figure there won't be many folks left by the time the actual voting occurs, so I'll wait patiently till Nov 4.

I'm right there with you!

Weegie · Post by **Weegie** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:11 am

I'm looking forward to taking Ted with us to vote, as long we can do it when it isn't close to a nap time, that is.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:53 am

Hater, it'd be great if people were more aware of basic civics, but do you realize just how many people aren't? Isn't it Leno who used to ask questions like that on the street and get all sorts of blank stares? I won't get on my soapbox about how education in this country is slip sliding away.

Yes, I am aware...that's the point.

rad,

To vote, you have to be a citizen (well, in theory, anyway).

As a citizen, you should understand, read, speak, and write BASIC English. I'm not looking for people who can write doctoral thesis papers. Like Lilah said, enough reading to comprehend the ballot and the issues on it.

AdGator02 · Post by **AdGator02** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:08 pm

hell, I can't understand some of the issues on the ballot without a lot of research and then I'm still confused. I don't mind skipping those things.

Isn't the test for citizenship in English? If so, I don't understand the ballot being in anything but English.

The civics test is too edgy. There's way too much room for discrimination (yes, I know I agree with a form of it by wanting the ballot in English only) to groups, especially the elderly, who may have forgotten details like the number of Supreme Court justices. If you are a citizen, you are a citizen and as such, you have the right to vote. There are plenty of stupid and/or forgetful Americans on all sides, but they are still Americans, and so long as they aren't convicted criminals, have the right/duty/privilege to vote.

It's like learning anything, if you don't use it, you lose it. How frequently do people need to know civics in order to be perfectly functioning individuals? At one point, I knew the presidents in chronological order. Have I used that since high school? No. Do I need to? No.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:20 pm

That just blows my mind... What kind of restrictions should we have? Poll Tax? Literacy Test? I think we've tried that before...

As for a your thoughts on disenfranchisement as practical matter, AA, what's practical about eliminating certain people from the voter rolls? How the hell could you do it systematically, and without regard to racial/class factors?

Disenfranchisement is the goal for me. I don't agree with all the populist rah-rah stuff we always hear about "democracy". I think it's a fundamentally flawed idea to allow for mob rule when we know the mob is made up of idiots. I feel like the mob, at this point, has shown its ignorance and has shown a massive penchant for short-sighted, self-centered, terrible choices. Why should our system of government bestow upon that same terrible mob broad control over my life? Because of some idealized notion of a social contract that was never offered to me and which I never accepted? I don't buy it. I'm not much of a kool-aid drinker.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:23 pm

The civics test is too edgy. There's way too much room for discrimination (yes, I know I agree with a form of it by wanting the ballot in English only) to groups, especially the elderly, who may have forgotten details like the number of Supreme Court justices. If you are a citizen, you are a citizen and as such, you have the right to vote. There are plenty of stupid and/or forgetful Americans on all sides, but they are still Americans, and so long as they aren't convicted criminals, have the right/duty/privilege to vote.

It's like learning anything, if you don't use it, you lose it. How frequently do people need to know civics in order to be perfectly functioning individuals? At one point, I knew the presidents in chronological order. Have I used that since high school? No. Do I need to? No.

Sorry, Lilah, I'm not on board with you here. However, I suppose reasonable people can disagree.

For starters, I do NOT agree that is a DUTY to vote. I do believe, however, that if you are going to vote it is a responsibility that one should not take lightly. You should at least TRY to be informed. I do not believe one can begin to be informed unless they understand basic civics. I don't believe that you just "lose" the knowledge included in the questions thus far discussed on this thread.

And, if you do lose it, don't vote until you get it back.

I do not believe you can be a medical doctor unless you understand basic anatomy, either.

AdGator02 · Post by **AdGator02** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:33 pm

I'm glad we can have a polite discussion about it. Part of the duty to vote is knowing the issues. If I don't feel like I know enough about something, I won't vote on it. I don't see how knowing some civics facts, for ex. Supreme Court Justices have life terms, should be a requirement. I'm 100% sure that given a small sample of reasonable, intelligent people (say, the members of this board), you'll find that you won't get a perfect score out of everyone. Does that mean someone here, who I would venture to guess is more knowledgeable than the majority of voters, shouldn't vote? It's a slippery slope.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:37 pm

Disenfranchisement is the goal for me. I don't agree with all the populist rah-rah stuff we always hear about "democracy". I think it's a fundamentally flawed idea to allow for mob rule when we know the mob is made up of idiots. I feel like the mob, at this point, has shown its ignorance and has shown a massive penchant for short-sighted, self-centered, terrible choices. Why should our system of government bestow upon that same terrible mob broad control over my life? Because of some idealized notion of a social contract that was never offered to me and which I never accepted? I don't buy it. I'm not much of a kool-aid drinker.

I'm sure you know, but you're not far off from some of the Framers' ideas. There is nothing in the Constitution about how the States choose their Electors, although the general thought was that the Electors would be selected by popular vote. I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if one State passed a law calling for the selection of Electors by the Governor or the State legislature.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:23 pm

Yep, Z. I think we've lost quite a bit of the thoughtfulness involved in political discussions in this country...we take too many things for granted and assume other things incorrectly.

The Constitution says States "appoint" their Electors, which is a rather broad concept. The 14th Amendment also provides for the reduction of representation (of either Electors, U.S. Reps or Senators or state elected officials) in proportion to the number of voters denied the ability to vote in these elections. This leads me to believe there was real discussion about States disallowing such votes and using their constitutional protections to protect their interests even without direct representation at the federal level.

The mere fact that such an idea was contemplated shows the deeper issues lurking around in the shadows of this kind of discussion. Most Americans assume our system of governance is a rigid system of rules to be followed. I believe we should push ourselves to use the tools of the law to think outside the box a little more.

Ah, who am I kidding? This country needs it's little list of rules...otherwise the 7 word soundbite would be dead.

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:31 pm

The Supreme Court would never allow this...y'all know that, right?

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:32 pm

The Supreme Court would never allow this...y'all know that, right?

put me on it

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:32 pm

^^LOL at Jimmy. He has been a lawyer for 15 minutes and he wants a crack at the SC.

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:41 pm

^^LOL at Jimmy. He has been a lawyer for 15 minutes and he wants a crack at the SC.

He'd do a better job that 4 of the MOFO's up there now.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:43 pm

Do I even have to bother asking which 4 mofos?

G8RKyle · Post by **G8RKyle** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:45 pm

If you are a citizen, you are a citizen and as such, you have the right to vote. There are plenty of stupid and/or forgetful Americans on all sides, but they are still Americans, and so long as they aren't convicted criminals, have the right/duty/privilege to vote

I'm pretty sure that no one has a right to vote in a federal election. Wasn't that the decision the SC came to in 2000?

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:48 pm

Do I even have to bother asking which 4 mofos?

Probably not.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:50 pm

Might I ask what makes them unacceptable in your eyes?

Please keep in mind that I am not picking a fight I just love to hear differing views from my own.

G8RKyle · Post by **G8RKyle** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:52 pm

I know that the Kelo vs. New London decision makes 5 of them unacceptable to me. Stomping on people's private property rights
is what is going to start a violent revolution, IMO.

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:56 pm

The main thing that makes them unacceptable to me is that they look to "international norms and law" when framing their decisions. What the rest of the world things and does has ABSOLUTELY ZERO use and value when considering OUR Constitution and the rights assigned therein. Couple that with the fact that they have absolutely no respect for the intent of the second amendment as its written makes them a blight on that court.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:57 pm

Only four of them do this or do the other five just do it in areas that don't bother you?

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:59 pm

From what Ive seen only two of them actively do it...but the other two follow along like sheep.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:04 pm

Does it matter at all that our constitution was written many many years ago and the founding fathers couldn't have none about issues that we face today? should there be any flexibility at all when interpreting a document that nobody was around when it was written to understand intent?

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:08 pm

Does it matter at all that our constitution was written many many years ago and the founding fathers couldn't have none about issues that we face today? should there be any flexibility at all when interpreting a document that nobody was around when it was written to understand intent?

Not to me it doesn't. If the Constitution needs to be changed, then we have a process in place to do that. Follow it.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:16 pm

It's possible to discern the framers' intent in most cases. That is often a starting point when SCOTUS considers a matter of first impression. While it's difficult to apply those sometimes limited thoughts from centuries ago, they do provide a framework within which to work. The difficulty comes in deciding where some modern action/legal issue falls within those limited restrictions put forth before we'd invented the new thing, whatever it is.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:17 pm

Do you think it is a coincidence that the constitution was written with lots of gray areas in it?