SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Daily Northwestern reports
The Illinois Senate voted 38-18 on [November 16] to override Gov. Bruce Rauner's veto of an automatic voter registration bill.
The bill [...] would automatically register voters who are seeking a new or updated license, or who are seeking other services from state departments such as Human Services or Healthcare and Family Services.
[...]The only two things a citizen should need to vote is being 18 years old and a citizen.
[...]The bill received bipartisan support when it passed through the House by a vote of 86-30 and the Senate with a vote of 42-16.
[...]To fully override Rauner's veto, the Illinois House will also have to vote to override, but it will not back in session until Nov. 29.
More information on Automatic Voter Registration can be found here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fnj on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:32PM
It's already far too easy for IDIOTS to vote. It would be better if it were much more tedious to register to vote. It ought to be a privilege earned by passing a test of IQ and knowledge of economics. It would be best if you could pass a test for genuine realism, but how could you test effectively for that? Certainly anyone accepting government subsidies should lose their privilege for the duration.
Call me Robert A. Heinlein if you like.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:54PM
Remind me what all the soldiers die for again? Something about being able to do something, no I can't remember.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:26PM
Poontang.
Specifically, to be able to fuck that poon.
Not sure about the females, but they probably have their reasons.
Cite: Full Metal Jacket
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:00PM
Imperialism. Mercantilism. Hegemony.
When you have to go to the other side of the globe in order to find people to kill, that is not "defense"; it's AGGRESSION.
I can't think of a single deployment of USA's military since WWII[1] (outside of the Coast Guard[2] in our own territorial waters) which hasn't been about hegemony|regime change.
[1] ...and WWII is only a -maybe- in terms of "defense".
The Axis never attacked the USA homeland; Hawaii was an IMPERIALIST possession of USA, which had been a sovereign nation and was taken by USAian military force in 1896.
In the 1930s, USA was diplomatically and militarily belligerent WRT the international trade of those countries, which became our full-on enemies in the ensuing years after they got tired of being pushed around.
[2] ...and, interestingly, though the Coast Guard has the -only- legit **defensive** role among the armed services, it wasn't ever under the Department of War except during WWI and WWII (normally under Depts of Commerce/Transportation/Homeland Security).
It has NEVER been under the Department of "Defense" (which should clearly be called the Department of Aggression).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:03PM
Perhaps. The thing is: any sort of test can easily turn into a test of political correctness.
If you are going to restrict voting, I think the restriction should be simple and objective: you must have skin in the game. There are various ways "skin" coule be measured, but one good candidate:
- You must pay more in direct taxes (sales, income, property, etc.) than you receive in direct benefits (welfare, social security, medicaid, government salary, government pension, etc.)
I do note that this effectively prevents government employees from voting, and that is intended. Since you mentioned Heinlein: this does not prevent retired military from voting, if they go on to sufficiently lucrative careers, and pay more in taxes that they receive in retirement.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:26PM
- You must pay more in direct taxes (sales, income, property, etc.) than you receive in direct benefits (welfare, social security, medicaid, government salary, government pension, etc.)
Great idea! Lets apply that to the electoral college too. Any state that collects more federal dollars than it contributes in federal taxes does not have skin in the game and thus does not get a vote.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:21PM
Since you mentioned Heinlein: this does not prevent retired military from voting, if they go on to sufficiently lucrative careers, and pay more in taxes that they receive in retirement.
Wait, so does that mean you're actually endorsing the suppression of active military voters? I'm not generally some sort of jingoistic flag-waving type, but aren't folks who are risking their lives to defend a nation entitled to some voice in who makes those decisions? That was basically the entire logic behind the 26th amendment [wikipedia.org]. Not only are we going to roll that back, but also I guess disenfranchise old people too so we can redirect their social security money after they've grown to feeble to work -- and thus vote -- anymore.
Also, how does your system work for spouses, dependents, etc.? Or does only the "breadwinner" in the household get to vote? A working wife gets her say in politics, but if she takes time off to raise kids (arguably a useful thing for society at large, or at least a valid choice for early child care and education), she no longer gets a voice? (Applies equally to "stay-at-home" dads too... though we all know which way this divide would tend to swing.) I'm just trying to figure out how much you're advocating a return to the ancient Greek demos system of voter/citizen eligibility... no women, children, poor, slaves... only a democracy created by the paterfamilias from each landed household?
Lastly, I see your wish for "objectivity," but why count only "direct" benefits? Maybe they're more quantifiable, but isn't that just asking for a government slanted toward waste for "indirect" benefits? Less welfare and social support for the old, the poor, and the indigent, military forces sent out on a whim without concern to their welfare, but plenty of government contracts and benefits to hand out to cronies, etc.? As long as the rich folks always keep their contributions as a "net positive" to retain their voting rights, won't they give themselves more and make it even harder for poor to ever satisfy the voting criteria?
There are certainly plenty of flaws in democracy, but tweaking is just going to lead to alternative forms of corruption and systemic manipulation. (Not saying improvement is impossible... but I think it's much harder than just stopping poor folks from voting.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @06:43PM
Wow, that is a crazy dystopia you've imagined there. Crazy.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:21PM
Include the benefit "profits, dividends, wages, or bonuses stemming from companies with government contracts", and we'll have something to talk about.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:29PM
- You must pay more in direct taxes (sales, income, property, etc.) than you receive in direct benefits (welfare, social security, medicaid, government salary, government pension, etc.)
OK, if you count everyone who receives income from government contracts and subsidy receivers as well.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:01PM
@ fnj-
call you robert heinlein ? ? ?
no fucking way, whatever you think of his politics, he was smart and could write entertainingly...
you are not smart...
you see, this is NOT a meritocracy of some stripe you seem to think it is, and your fucking YYYUUUUUGE intellect (and $10) will get you a latte at starbucks, otherwise, it ain't worth shit...
cause, you know, even 'stupid' people deserve to live and have a voice in how the planet is run...
and -to be quite honest- if it wasn't for an infinitude of 'stupid' people cleaning up your shit, growing your food, making your toys, driving trucks, building houses, running generating plants, and generally doing the ACTUAL REAL WORK it takes to run a complex society, you -Mr. Fucking Smart Guy- would be dead in a week, left to your own brainiac devices...
i thank ALL my brothers and sisters who contribute to this society, whatever their IQ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:18PM
...and, if Lamestream Media AKA TeeVee (where most folks get their "information") was doing their job properly, those "stupid" people would be becoming better informed on the issues.
All they've been seeing, however, is horse-race bullshit--not the track conditions.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @04:50PM
It would be better if it were much more tedious to register to vote. It ought to be a privilege earned by passing a test of IQ and knowledge of economics.
The problem with such proposals is that they ignore history and what will inevitably happen if you put such restrictions into effect. You ever heard of "grandfathering" someone or something into a program (or whatever)? It used to be a thing. [wikipedia.org]
After the Civil War, this was a method used to suppress black votes, Hispanic votes, and even (more liberal) lower-class white voters. Basically, many southern states had "literacy tests" which actually were made essentially impossible to pass. (Or at least "impossible to pass" if they were administered to someone who shouldn't be allowed to vote.) But, if your grandfather was an eligible voter (i.e., a landowner in the ante bellum South), then you didn't need to prove your "literacy" and thus were "grandfathered in" to your right to vote.
Now, I'm sure you might say -- this won't happen today. That was obvious racism or whatever. But it wasn't just racism. It was classism. It was manipulation of voting rights based on what one party (Democrats, at that time) wanted, and against their political opponents.
Any "IQ test" or "knowledge of economics" test will eventually be manipulated by political parties to try to favor their base.
We can have legitimate arguments about whether democracy is ultimately a sustainable governmental system, or whether there should be various restrictions on voting rights. But given how deeply major parties tend to go to manipulate election results nowadays, I really don't think we want to put a "voter test" in their hands.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:23PM
Because even idiots have rights, and voting is NOT a privilege. What an incredibly stupid question, do you thing asking that stupid question should disqualify you from voting?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @06:58PM
I think you're putting too much stock in pseudoscientific IQ tests, which emerged from the social 'sciences'.
but how could you test effectively for that?
How would you effectively test for any of this? How would you prevent tests designed to suppress certain groups of people? How can you even say that someone doesn't deserve to be able to vote just because they don't have the knowledge you want them to have?
Call me Robert A. Heinlein if you like.
You're an authoritarian and so was he.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:02PM
I'd be all in favor of this provided only I get to decide the questions that need to be answered to be able to vote.
Question 1 - True or False: Both the Democrats and Republicans are tools for economic forces to force their wishes on the general population.