Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

In the USA

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 6:03:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Should it be considered unconstitutional to take away the voting right of people whose only source of income is government funded? (aside from ssi)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 6:34:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 6:03:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
Should it be considered unconstitutional to take away the voting right of people whose only source of income is government funded? (aside from ssi)

Unconstitutional, maybe not, but it is a nightmare to enforce. States do have say in who can cast ballots. For example, those that are too young, have felonies (unless rights have been re-instated), and the retarded cannot vote.

First, you suggest some government funding is okay, you mention ssi, but what about social security payments or those who work for the government (military, police, county clerks, judges, etc.)? What is the criteria for what payments are allowed?

Second, what of the spouses that benefit from these, are they allowed? Their adult children?

Last, you say it is their only source of income. So, if I am on welfare, but I won $10 on a lottery ticket, the government is not the sole source of income. Regardless, how would you find this out without delving through financial records? The election judges can't do this, so the vote would be cast, and maybe the Secratary of State would investigate.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 6:35:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 6:03:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
Should it be considered unconstitutional to take away the voting right of people whose only source of income is government funded? (aside from ssi)

There is no inherent right to vote. Supreme Court 2000
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 7:30:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 6:35:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/14/2012 6:03:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
Should it be considered unconstitutional to take away the voting right of people whose only source of income is government funded? (aside from ssi)

There is no inherent right to vote. Supreme Court 2000

Exactly, but if voting is allowed, there are rules. Blacks can't not vote, while whites can. No poll taxes. Etc.

I think the ability to vote based on how your income is derived would violate one of these rules, at least as stated in the OP. Perhaps, if you recieve any government assistance, you are ineligible. This might fly, but it would include SSI, then.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 7:48:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 7:30:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/14/2012 6:35:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/14/2012 6:03:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
Should it be considered unconstitutional to take away the voting right of people whose only source of income is government funded? (aside from ssi)

There is no inherent right to vote. Supreme Court 2000

Exactly, but if voting is allowed, there are rules. Blacks can't not vote, while whites can. No poll taxes. Etc.

I think the ability to vote based on how your income is derived would violate one of these rules, at least as stated in the OP. Perhaps, if you recieve any government assistance, you are ineligible. This might fly, but it would include SSI, then.

The current law is that no tests or requirements which discriminate based on any of the protected statuses (sexuality, race, gender, etc). So no government assistance, but they would have to exclude SSI and military benefits (since you can't discriminate based on age or veteran status).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 7:51:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Unconstitutional, eh...probably NOT.

Wrong (in my opinion)? Absolutely.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 7:54:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 6:03:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
Should it be considered unconstitutional to take away the voting right of people whose only source of income is government funded? (aside from ssi)

Here are some relevant amendments:

14th Amendment, Section 2: [W]hen the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Now, historically, this section was never enforced, despite requirements for literacy tests and poll taxes, but it's still there. There is a slightly entangling issue in that this only applies to men, but it'd simply take a quick Court case to update this to include any otherwise eligible voter.

So, this wouldn't prevent such a voting restriction, but would make it undesirable, in that any state that implements such a strategy would be undermining its own representation.

15th Amendment, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The "condition of servitude" is what is relevant here, though, in context, it specifically referenced ex-slaves. However, I could see an interpretation of this clause extending this to be any current or former condition of employment, but that would require a pretty high-level court case.

The problem is, your wording excludes a lot more than those white trash nasty welfare leeches I infer you are referencing. All government employees fall under this category since their income comes from taxes and, thus, is government funded. So: all policemen, military, government civilians, political office holders, etc. etc. etc.

Given the group of people you'd be disenfranchising, I'm sure they'd find a way to make it unconstitutional.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 7:55:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What if we showed our W-2 and ID at the polls?
Our W-2s are supposed to depict where our sources of income are from and how much we have paid into society.

Pretty much what I'm curious of, is if it would be considered wrong if only people who contributed to society were the only eligible vote in society.

I think that if people are allowed to vote that receive assistance, they will vote for more assistance even if the assistance is not necessary.

The same premise as if people could vote for themselves to get a raise.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 7:56:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 6:03:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
Should it be considered unconstitutional to take away the voting right of people whose only source of income is government funded? (aside from ssi)

What do you mean "should" it be considered unconstitutional. That's like asking, should it be considered immoral if someone does something immoral? 15th Amendment grants rights regardless of "previous condition of servitude" (to which category welfare could arguable belong)....and then a clause in the 14th Amendment grants all citizens equal protection under the law, where no state government or the federal government may deprive or abridge the privileges (ie. voting) and immunities of citizenry without due process.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 8:13:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 7:55:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
What if we showed our W-2 and ID at the polls?
Our W-2s are supposed to depict where our sources of income are from and how much we have paid into society.

Then you've just disenfranchised:
Adult dependents of employed citizens
Non-working spouses of employed citizens
Independent Contractors (who use a 1099)
Other people that simply don't need to work but also aren't on Welfare.


Pretty much what I'm curious of, is if it would be considered wrong if only people who contributed to society were the only eligible vote in society.

Define "wrong"
Define "contribute to society"


I think that if people are allowed to vote that receive assistance, they will vote for more assistance even if the assistance is not necessary.

The same premise as if people could vote for themselves to get a raise.

Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 8:15:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 7:48:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/14/2012 7:30:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/14/2012 6:35:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/14/2012 6:03:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
Should it be considered unconstitutional to take away the voting right of people whose only source of income is government funded? (aside from ssi)

There is no inherent right to vote. Supreme Court 2000

Exactly, but if voting is allowed, there are rules. Blacks can't not vote, while whites can. No poll taxes. Etc.

I think the ability to vote based on how your income is derived would violate one of these rules, at least as stated in the OP. Perhaps, if you recieve any government assistance, you are ineligible. This might fly, but it would include SSI, then.

The current law is that no tests or requirements which discriminate based on any of the protected statuses (sexuality, race, gender, etc). So no government assistance, but they would have to exclude SSI and military benefits (since you can't discriminate based on age or veteran status).

Isn't SSI what they give disabled people? If so, it is not an age issue. According to this, it is for disabled people AND old people may qualify, so, again, it isn't age specific, therefore it isn't an age issue.
http://www.ssa.gov...

Government assistance =/= benefits. Again, I don't know what the OP meant, but being paid by the government for working (wages) and their subsequent benefits (pensions) is not assistance, but it is government paid. In my example, these would not qualify to nullify your vote.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 8:26:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 7:55:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
What if we showed our W-2 and ID at the polls?
Our W-2s are supposed to depict where our sources of income are from and how much we have paid into society.

W-2s do not say whether or not you paid into society, by which I assume you mean taxes. It merely says how much, if any, has been withheld; I could get it all back.

Furthermore, there is sensitive information on it, such as, where I work, my SS#, my full name, and address. Everything anyone needs to steal my identity, and I should give that to some stranger?

Pretty much what I'm curious of, is if it would be considered wrong if only people who contributed to society were the only eligible vote in society.

So, should housewives be allowed to vote?
You say "contributed", so, if I did pay taxes for 15 years, then get divorced, file bankruptcy, and now get assistance while I pick myself up, should I be allowed to vote this year? How would you know?

Furthermore, I know people who work full-time and get food stamps, should they be allowed to vote? These people also pay no income taxes, which you wouldn't know from his W-2. Either way, he does have a job and he has kids, both are productive for a society.

I think that if people are allowed to vote that receive assistance, they will vote for more assistance even if the assistance is not necessary.
And taxpayers may vote to decrease their taxes. What's your point?

People will vote their interests over principles more often than not; they generally succumb to the self-serving bias.

The same premise as if people could vote for themselves to get a raise.
They do. Teachers might vote in those who would increase education expenditures, sports fans would vote for people that would give away stadiums, and remember Giffords, the Congresswoman who was shot, she was on the commitee that approved the budget for NASA, who her husband worked for. Was she going to vote herself a layoff?
Would a coal miner vote for an environmentalist who wants to shut down coal production immediately?
My work here is, finally, done.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 8:34:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 8:26:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am not talking about another than people who collect money from welfare and foodstamps and have used that as their source of income for years.

The points you address are valid and shouldn't be infringed, but I don't mean to include people who aren't abusing our assistance.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 8:47:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know what you're talking about, but how do you prove it come election day?

The fact that I have a job does not mean I pay taxes.
The fact that I pay taxes does not mean I don't collect welfare.
The fact that I have welfare does not mean I don't contribute to society.

What evidence could be brought that would split these hairs appropriately? Even the government does not necessarily know who should vote by your standards.

As I said, it may be Constitutional to do this, but to implement it would be impossible.
My work here is, finally, done.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2012 12:14:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 8:47:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I know what you're talking about, but how do you prove it come election day?

The fact that I have a job does not mean I pay taxes.
The fact that I pay taxes does not mean I don't collect welfare.
The fact that I have welfare does not mean I don't contribute to society.

What evidence could be brought that would split these hairs appropriately? Even the government does not necessarily know who should vote by your standards.

As I said, it may be Constitutional to do this, but to implement it would be impossible.

I don't believe anything to be impossible, just unpractical. Once it becomes practical, ideas are made and it becomes possible.

Everyone who needs assistance needs to go through rigorous financial checks every 6 months.
Maybe that program would be more successful to implement such an idea.