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: 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.