Do We Let Them Vote Next Time?

I think I've made my position pretty clear.

Anyone want to step up to the plate and defend why Trump voters ought to be allowed to vote in 2020 or 2024?

Ignore the logistics. Defend why you would let such irresponsible people wreck the country a third time.

 

Why? We banned Confederates from voting for a decade after the Civil War. Constitution seems to have done just fine.

I apologize. I have reworded my first post to include the phrase "ignore the logistics." I clearly did not articulate that part of the argument and for that I claim full responsibility.

Even Russia and Turkey aren't that brazen in subverting democracy.[/QUOTE]

Actually, they are. Russia routinely bans opposition voters from participating.

But seriously. Why should we let them vote in 2020? What's the argument? This time they'll know better? This time they won't elect a dangerous, incompetent traitor?

Seriously. That's why I was told to start this thread - to have a serious argument. Defend allowing Trump voters the franchise whilst simultaneously banning it for people under 18, ex-felons, people with mental disabilities, and people who came here as undocumented immigrants when they were three years old but pay taxes. I'm all ears.

 

I've said repeatedly that this is me being serious. The last time an entire governing body in the United States committed treason - and at this point we can safely assume that Kushner did not act alone - the country went to war. The losers of that war were denied the right to vote for up to three presidential elections. I'm suggesting just one election.

Easy. We start by identifying the people who obviously support the traitors - the Sean Hannity group, those who served in government under Trump and permitted these acts, and those who voted in the non-secret Republican primary elections for Trump. One could also identify individuals who supported Trump on social media and link them to voter registration. Then, we would invalidate their registration forms for the next election cycle. It obviously wouldn't get every voter, but it would serve the same purpose as Reconstruction - a course correction to remove a plague from the election system.

I think driving should be linked to one's ability to safely drive a moving vehicle, not age. There are 30-year olds who ought not be driving.

As for the other stuff, 14-year olds can get themselves declared emancipated. It happens all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors

They can also enter into valid contracts without parental consent.

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34024

Why shouldn't a 15-year old with amazing proficiency behind the wheel be barred from voting whilst a 70-year old who can barely see ten feet forward be allowed?

Stein and Johnson voters didn't vote for traitors. They didn't stick up for a traitor. They are not as complicit. Hillary Clinton 2016 and Barack Obama 2012 received roughly the same number of votes. Donald Trump received more votes than Mitt Romney in 2012. It is conceivable that every Stein or Johnson voter would have stayed home if their candidate not run. It's not comparable. You know it's not comparable.

It's really a shame that you do not have an actual argument. It really is. It's disappointing to read half-assed arguments to defend what should be a pretty simple proposition: that even though Trump-Bush voters screwed up twice, expanding the franchise to felons, minors, and other disenfranchised groups would accomplish the same course correction.

 

Do you think that imprisoned felons and minors ought to be allowed to vote?

Honest question.

 

Try a serious argument.

 

Why is this not a serious discussion, in your mind?

Do you trust Trump voters to not make the same mistake a third time?

If so, why?

If not, what is your plan to stop them from destroying the country further?

 

Why eighteen?

 

It is a serious question. Why does the Constitution mandate 18? Why not 17? Why not 19? Why not 18 days, 6 months, four days, two hours?

The answer, the one most people here are incapable of understanding, is that it is purely arbitrary. It was so that people drafted for Vietnam could vote. And I'm asking you, in as serious a way as I can, if you are perfectly acceptable with an arbitrary disenfranchisement of millions of American tax-paying citizens, why are you not acceptable with another arbitrary disenfranchisement?

Why do you think lowering the age of majority to 16 is any better than keeping at 18?

This is what I'm trying to get you to understand. You are okay with arbitrary restrictions on the franchise. Undocumented immigrants, who live their lives without the benefits of earning citizenship, nevertheless pay taxes. Why don't we let them vote? And if we're okay with them not voting for some arbitrary distinction (they were born in a different place than where they spent most of their life), why are you suddenly not okay with a distinction based on an actual track record?

I have difficulty believing that anyone on this board sees your average Trump voter and trusts them with the franchise. I don't. I remember the Iraq war. I remember being called a traitor for opposing the war. And now I see Trump voters starting to distance themselves from their vote. How many times do you let them toss the country into the brink of institutional collapse before you decide you can't tolerate it any more?

So, I not only know someone who was emancipated as a teenager (my wife), but I have a rudimentary understanding of the world. If you google "statistics emancipated minors" you will find a PDF report indicating emancipation statistics for 2015. Of about 270,000 minors in a population of those in foster homes, 9% are emancipated. That's 24,300. You may see that as rare. But that is more than the total number of gun homicides, or gun suicides, each year. That's about 60% of the number of car fatalities each year. I do not see it as rare. And I know more about the topic than you're giving me credit - it's not exactly a lengthy process.

 

Why? Instead of just dissing it, why not come up with a reason why it's not a good idea?

I don't know. I do know that this paragraph was probably stated, all but verbatim, in the run-up to the Civil War as Northerners were considered to be a moral cabal, and that Lincoln's policies would destroy the South for little gain. Now, Trump hasn't done anything remotely as bad as slavery, but our level of polarization is as large as it was then.

Why?

You actually don't know what my idea is. Because you didn't bother to read the thread.

 

So you are adamantly opposed to the disenfranchisement of ex-felons and barring undocumented immigrants from voting? Or do you have arbitrary distinctions for voting?