Should people on public assistance be able to vote?

Damn, I could have sworn that I've been going to work and supporting myself for the last 28 years.

That might be the stupidest post I've ever read!!

 

There shouldn't be an economic requirement to vote. It would put the burden of proof on every single voter to prove that they aren't on public assistance to the voting office, EVERY time there is an election, big or small. It's a white guy fantasy disguising the "I don't want all the damn n*gg#rs voting for Cold Cash Jeffason" motive, and not feasible at all once you look past the ideals and see the reality of implementing this system. There are so many layers of "public assistance" that defining and tracking them in real time for every single election is impossible.


However, with compulsory education, every child in America can go to school for free, and are legally required to do so. The right to vote should be at the end of that education. Once you achieve a high-school diploma, you get to vote. This is the system I want.

 

Personally I think that people who listen to Walton and Johnson should not be allowed to vote, but that's just me. I think people should have to take a basic civics test before being allowed to vote.

Odds are that the people who are too lazy to look for work and too lazy to vote as well...

 

To avoid misconstruction of the right to property, the phrase was replaced by the pursuit of Happiness in the July 4, 1776 Declaration. Sadly, the misconstruction seems to have unconsciously settled in the minds of the electorate anyway as the right to the property of others.

Gradually it became possible to purchase votes with the taxpayer's own money. Once the general public realized that certain classes of individuals could be the beneficiaries of funds legally confiscated from others, the hoped-for power-controlling value of the ballot was extinguished.

The ballot alone simply cannot restore government respect for unalienable rights. A significant number of citizens must become philosophically competent to achieve that noble goal, and I do not see a Philosophical Renaissance* coming over the horizon.

*A brilliantly descriptive term introduced by Ayn Rand.

tgsam

 

If I can't vote, then you should not be able to draft me to fight in a war, when I had no vote in the politician who declared it. There are a lot of repercussions to not allowing folks to vote.

 

Can I voluntarily relinquish my right to vote in exchange for not being compelled to pay federal income tax or receive any federal benefits like social security, FHA loans, etc? I'd take that in a heartbeat. Many would, that's why it'll never be an option.

I still got no clarification from the OP as to what in his definition constitutes "public assistance"...

 

The only thing that might keep most elections from being a farce would be to have None of the Above on the ballot.

Just think, if office holders were ruthlessly forced to abide by the law of the land, it would hardly matter who holds office.

tgsam

 

Do we vote on who doesn't vote?

Most conservatives favor a strict interpretation of the constitution, not sure how these guys slide this idea under that position. Disenfranchise those you disagree with doesn't seem like what the founding fathers had in mind....

 

I dont think public assistance is constituitonal, but since we have it there is no need to abolish more rights. Yes they should be able to vote.

 

Actually, the founding fathers were quite comfortable disenfranchising the people that they owned. Voting rights for all didn't mean much to them, or else they would have better defined who actually got to participate in the system they drafted.