Voter qualification test

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since nobody pays any attention to what I think anyway. I barf out my thoughts on qualification.

Land Ownership via inheritance or purchase qualifies one to vote.

Legal heirs of land owners are qualified to vote. An heir is heir apparent. A family has 6 kids, but only one is going to inherit the land, that one is the only one who inherits the qualification.

Volunteer military service qualifies one to vote after 3 years of good service. There will never be a draft.

Enlistment in public service such a volunteer fire departments/rescue squads qualifies one to vote after 3 years good service.

There will be no more police. There will constables who will serve as enforment arms of the local magistrate for a period of two years. This person or persons will be voted on at large from a pool of citizens. This will be an unpaid or very lowly paid posistion and will be the duty of all citizens to serve if elected. Constabulary and Public Office will be the only conscription within the borders of the powers of the dutiful and constitutional government.

TERM LIMITS

Holders of Public Office will not be treated like Kings, and there will be no titles of royalty such as Esquire. All Free Persons will be the same in the eyes of the law.

Holders of Public Office, once voted in by popular majority MUST serve out the term of that office or answer to the Magistrate. I'm still not certain who the magistrate is going to be, but if you are curious, go read Exodus and Deuteronomy. Holding public office is a duty that can fall onto the backs of any Free Person. Being elected to Public Office conferrs the right to vote. Public Office holders get paid about like soldiers and get fed and clothed in the same manner.

If we are to have any foreign intervention it will be in the form of the peace corps. Teaching the people to fish. We the People will never hand out charity. Three years good service helping others help themselves by getting down there and digging latrines in some 3rd world ****hole will qualify one for voting status. This will help bring balance for those who really do have a problem with military service.

Please make careful note, the GOVERNMENT shall never be in the BUSINESS of charity. If you want to give handouts, that is YOUR business, yours and yours alone and may God bless you for it. No TAX breaks, nothing. The peace corps concept I am talking about is not charity. It is teaching a person to feed themselves, not feeding them.

Other such stuff. I know I need a more balanced approach. This is all off the top of my head.

There should also be a "outside" qualifier, along the lines of what SHOULD be expected of any highschool graduate. Being able to correctly diagram a sentence. Being able to solve for X using the quadratic equation, NOT OPEN BOOK, etceteras.

Further, once the right to vote is conferred. A voter may not vote for the member of a polical party without being able to demonstrate familarity with that party's platform and goals. Blah Blah Blah a congressman without knowing the principal
successes/failures of the incumbant, same for senators, judges, and so on.

Failing to exercise the priviledge to vote could in some instances result in its loss. Not sure what those instances would be, but they could.

The priviledge to vote is lost if a person is convicted of a high crime (treason, counterfeiting, piracy) or other Felony. Felonies shall be murder, grand larceny, rape, and some others of the more henious acts of mankind. Other crimes will be misdemeanors and they shall not result in the loss of the privilege of voting. This crap of making everything under the the sun a felony must come to a screeching halt. What is a felony is pretty clear. What is or isn't a crime seems to be up the whim of todays talking head on the TV or podium pounder on the Hill. Crimes are easy to figure out. They leave real, tangible victims.

Two words
Term Limits

-----------------
My boss came up with some goodies. He sez, Motor Voter in reverse. If you Don't Vote, you lose your license. All this 21 crap gets pulled back to 18. A person is a legal person at 18. There is nothing special about 21.
------------------

Being a voter conferrs no special favors or rights. Only the right to vote. All persons living within the borders of the US are accorded the respect of a Free Person. Period. All persons visiting the US must be vouched for by a natural born, and once here, may go about as a Free Person for their time as visitor. At no time will a vistors visa exceed 4 months out of any consecutive 12. If they wish to emmigrate, they must pass a citizenry test like the one described, be able to demonstrate a needed skillset, and only their children or grand children born on US soil may purchase land and become a voter. This is to prevent rich robber baron criminals from raping the 3rd world and retiring on their own private Idaho with the spoils of their evil.

Did I say Term Limits?

Boy, this is fun!

take care
 
I never thought I'd see the day that TFL members expoused the virtues fo Jim Crow Laws!!

I suggest that everyone take a deep breath and think about whether or not they really want the gov't to declare any more qualifications on us before we are able to excercise freedoms....

Sheesh.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Ok, Rob....

Why is it exactly that voting is a "universal" right?

Ive explained my position on it...I dont feel its "Jim Crow" because it doesnt have anything to do with race.

Every time I bring this subject up, or anyone else does for that matter, theres always someone who jumps up and screams "Jim Crow", or better yet, "racist".

But neither of those epithets have anything to do with the subject at hand. Not a flame, sir, but, to quote you...

Sheesh ;)
 
The practical truth of the matter is that it is racist because it affects minorities.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Just off the top of my head:

1) You have a lot more faith in our government than I do if you are going let *them* determine who can and can not vote. Though I believe I understand your frustration and motives, I will fight you to the death over this one. Oh, yes, I mean that literally.

2) The fact that not everyone chooses to vote can make our voice stronger, less diluted, and lessen the chance that the (otherwise non-voting) dimwits take over. I am staunchly against drive-in voting, registering to vote when you get your driver's license, etc.

If the butthead is too dumb or too lazy to vote - good. One less retard at the polls.

3) The ballot box is our only non-violent method of determining government policy - more accurately, determining who will determine government policy. Our Constitution is intended to empower the people and to limit the government. Permitting the government to establish who may vote is antithetical to the entire concept of our country, our Constitution, and, to be blunt, would benefit only potential tyrants and appear sensible only to someone who is unwilling or unable to think this concept through to its logical conclusion. Good Lord, guys, do you want people like Clinton determining who can or can not vote? How about another National Instant Check System at the polls? Grrrrr. I'm losing it here.....

4) I can only hope those who are supporting ANY sort of voter qualification testing are playing devil's advocate or merely trying to "stir the pot". You win. My pot is stirred.
------------

There's more, much more but this is enough for now lest I become truly insulting.
 
This thread pretty much outlines why I'm an anarchist. Of course many voters are ignorant, easily-swayed people, they're human. To cure the symptom of voters voting for people we don't like, and for reasons we do not approve, we wish to add a new layer of government control of the voting process. And the whole time the government is the disease. What did Friedman say, something like the government's solution to a problem is worse than the problem itself.

I'd rather we give the test to the nitwits who foist themselves on the rest of us as candidates.

------------------
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of any of their number is self-protection."
John Stuart Mill
 
Syrup,

"I'd rather we give the test to the nitwits who foist themselves on the rest of us as candidates."

A Candidate qualification test! Eureka! THAT I could go for!
 
Dennis:I agree that the problem is the peopke elected and it is also true that we have a whole bunch of ignorant voters. I dont mean uneducated-I mean ignorant.

And the problems caused by not voting is a whole nother topic.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Yep, I think it would not hurt to limit voting to property owners or people who had some other qualification, such as 3 years honorable military service. The people who have a stake in society should be the ones to rule it.


------------------
Remember: When you attempt to rationalize two inconsistent positions, you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up... Yankee Doodle
 
OK, OK... so I'm wrong. First time for everything. ;)

I still get torqued when I think about all the potheads and morons saying, "Du-uuude, we should vote for this guy/issue/blahblah," when they have not the slightest clue what they're doing, to themselves or us.

Nevertheless, I withdraw my proposal for a Voter Qualification Test.

------------------
Compromise: opting to be sodomized with a 36"
Black Mamba wrapped in 200-grit sandpaper instead
of 100-grit.
 
I have felt a great disturbance in the Force. I came here, seeking the cause of my distress, and forgive me if I misinterpret, but some things I read have raised my hackles. To sum up:

"Yep, I think it would not hurt to limit voting to property owners or people who had some other qualification, such as 3 years honorable military service. The people who have a stake in society should be the ones to rule it."

Based on this and similar sentiments I have read, I would be forbidden to vote!! I do not own any land, as I cannot afford to purchase any- I do not even own the house I live in, and I do not stand to inherit any such property upon the death of anyone in my family. I have no military service and could not qualify if I tried now- I attempted to enter the Army at 17 and was turned down for medical reasons. I cannot join the Peace Corps- I am married with 2 daughters to provide for, and I cannot leave them for 3 years to go to Uganda. I have little enough time with them as it is. I do not support the idea of forcing me to give up even more of my time with them. My family comes first! I might could see my way to joining a volunteer squad/volunteer peace officer, but there has to be consideration for the fact that it may not be possible for me or others like me.

Despite all this, I do have a stake in this country- because I and my family live here! Just because I don't own land doesn't change that fact- and I do vote.

To all here- I am your brother in arms. Please, don't shut me out (or advocate such) because I'm not wealthy or physically fit to be soldier.

PS. I don't consider such ideas to be "Jim Crow" or racist, bacause I'm white and they would still affect me.

------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo

If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP! RKBA!

A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.
 
Interesting...

Those that are advocating voting requirements above and beyond age and citizenship are using the exact same logic that the gun control/ban crowd does:

vote=gun
idiot pols/effects of elections=crime/accidents

solution=ban/regulate voters/guns

Smart people try to figure out how to make crime unprofitable...or making votes for sellouts/whores and socialists less desirable

You better decide what side you are on, pronto...you sure ain't on my side nor the side of liberty and freedom.


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Okay, lissen, Its just for fun. I suppose the folks who detract from this sort of discussion are pleased with things as they are, and thats fine.

The sort of changes I was submitting are the kind I would think would come after the 3rd American Revolution, or the Second Civil War, whichever you want to call it.

In short, I would like to see public office as being more like jury duty and a lot less like the stay out of jail and get paid handsomely while doing it free for all it has become.

I've been one who has always said that anyone who seeks the office of President should be disqualified from holding it on those grounds.
 
Smart people try to figure out how to make crime unprofitable...or making votes for sellouts/whores and socialists less desirable


ALERT: The following is NOT meant as sarcasm.

DC, I understand what you're saying, but HOW can we make voting for whores unprofitable? As far as I can see, we're in a vicious circle, and we'll remain in it until the tards decide to give up and go away, or the entire electoral system is disbanded.

Do I support restricting the vote based on wealth or connections? NO. I didn't even suggest such a thing. Did I propose that the gov't make the decision? NO. Read my initial post again, people. Read it for what I said, and please don't read anything into it that isn't there.

ObSheeh: Sheesh.

------------------
Compromise: opting to be sodomized with a 36"
Black Mamba wrapped in 200-grit sandpaper instead
of 100-grit.
 
Hi DC, sorry I didn't read you post before my earlier response.

I am "old enough" to vote, whatever the heck that means. Have been for a while.

I own property,

I have worked as a LEO,

I have served in Uniform and have a honorable discharge.

I did some rescue squad work for a while until I decided I wasn't cut out for it. I can do it if I have to, but one to many tramatic decapitations just sorta put me off.

On me mothers side, I can claim clan colors and DAR, also DAC, though the fellow from whence that honor comes faced a brother who was also field grade at Manassas.

None of this makes me in any way unique.

I have voted in elections where my candidate lost to an encumbant who was voted in by DEAD PEOPLE.

You say I am not a friend of Liberty and Freedom. I ask you, what is it that I may do
to convince you otherwise. Perhaps it is not possible for me to do so. I can live with that, though I am sorry for it.
 
Posted and mailed:

DC and Dennis,

I originally started this thread as a semi-humorous attempt to bring to light a huge flaw in our electoral system: any fool who can find his way into the voting booth and has the motor skills to control a puncher has the power to control our lives. Considering the staggering number of fools in the US (like the ones who voted for King William), this is not, I think, something that can be overlooked.

However, due to the well-known net.phenomenon known as thread veer, it appears that the whole thread is degenerating into a shouting match. I know you two find the whole subject of voter qualification repugnant, and the efforts of others in the thread to pervert my original meaning (giving the vote only to landowners, vets, et c) have made it worse beyond measure.

In an earlier post, I admitted that I was mistaken. I was still taken to task afterward.

Therefore, in the interest of preserving what little sanity I still possess, I'm bowing out of the thread altogether. Not because I'm ashamed of having started a controversy, but because there's no point in staying in.


------------------
Compromise: opting to be sodomized with a 36"
Black Mamba wrapped in 200-grit sandpaper instead
of 100-grit.
 
Coinneach,

I remember your original post, and I do not take issue with you on its sentiment. I know it's not you that proposed restricting votes to those who have land, I read that in other posts by other members, and that is where I take issue. I may have even misinterpreted what was being said there (I sure hope so).
If you feel that I have misrepresented you, or even flamed you, I apologize as that is not my intent. Feel free to email me privately if you feel it necessary, and we can talk it out.

The more I think about it, though, the less I am in favor of restricting the right to vote, as any supposed qualifications would be far to subjective for my tastes. As I have mentioned before, tightening the requirements for citizenship (fairly) would probably go a long way towards keeping a lot of selfish louts from voting themselves more welfare. DC, I agree that we must be careful to not equate the vote with the results, and therefore restrict the right to vote. I believe it behooves anyone who is voting to realize who and what they are voting for, just as it behooves the armed person to know how to use their weapons and handle them safely.

Can we, should we, make voters/gunowners educate themselves before the exercise of that right? That's a can of worms I don't want to touch. As for making votes for sellouts and socialists undesireable, I belive it already is. Most people just don't take the time to think when Sen. Richard Bohica says "Vote for me and I'll blahbiddy-blah". What he proposes sounds good, and they bite. Far better, in my opinion, is to make public office undesireable as a career, and carefully screen candidates (i.e. only those who understand and mean to obey the Constitution can be elected). I once read a book in which there was a Republic where, when someone was elected to public office, their property and possesions were sold and the proceeds put into the public coffers. Once their term was up they got their assets back, with interest or penalties depending on how well they faithfully executed their duties. They had a real incentive to be ethical and honest in their official capacity. Things that make you go "Hmmm..."
;)


------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo

If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP! RKBA!

A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.
 
GRRRRRRR!!!!

DC,

You are right, I am wrong.

I sincerely retract everything I said.


Don't ever give up on an ignoramous, you just
might teach someone something..


I'm going to bed now.
 
Look guys...

Its not the voters who are at fault...there have always been and will always be dummies, pinheads, the gullible and every other flavor under the sun. The problem is the people who are elected...people who are immune from legal action, people who disregard the Constitution, people who seek power and control for its own right.
Jedi is on the right track...make public office risky and the office holder accountable for his/her actions. Right now these people are immune from most legal actions. Its very much like what we say about guns....don't need more laws, enforce the ones on the books.
This is how it would be in "my" world:
1) Term limits...I used to be against this but the baseness of human nature convinced me otherwise. We can not trust them with that kind of power.
2) The Constitution is not to be considered a living document...it says what it means and means what it says. No more chickensh!t interpretation as to what the Founders meant. We know what they meant. No more parsing, slippin, etc. The provision for amending it is built in...thats sufficient "living document".
3) Every official act/proposal/bill/regulation must have attached an in depth Constitutional analysis citing authority and compatibility with the Constitution and its intent.
4)Every single official...elected or appointed or hired is liable for their actions. Failure to adhere to the meaning and spirit of the Constitution is treason and they will be charged and prosecuted. No legal immunity....lying under oath is a felony and your @ss is grass.
5) Just like the military, upon terms end...all officials as in #4 will have performance evaluations and reviews...every single thing they did will be scrutinized with the legal and with the Constitutional lenses.

That is how you begin to clean up this mess. A Commie, a Nazi, a Royalist or anything could be elected...as long as he/she is subject to the rules above...no harm is done at all and likely more good.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
My point was not that this proposal was at all racist.

I'm on track with Dennis and DC (and others):

How can anyone around here consider letting the gov't control who gets to vote??!!

------------------
-Essayons
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top