hooray for a caste system! \o/

Mere physical presence, no ID, no questions asked.  Anything more is RACIST!

We could get some valuable ideas from the Greek voting system:

Voting is mandatory for all Greek citizens 18+ years old (although the requirement is not actually enforced). A law was just passed lowering the voting age to 17, for future elections. It goes without saying that they have to have proper ID.

Elections are always held on Sunday, when most people have the day off from work.

There is no early voting. Voters must vote in person, at the voting locations at which they are registered (with few exceptions). If you are physically out of the country, tough luck. You don't get to vote.

Voting is by means of paper ballots (only). Each party has its own printed ballots. Voters select the ballot of the party for which they wish to vote, and then mark the names of specific candidates on that ballot. (This is like a party primary and a general election rolled into one.)

Campaigns only last for a little over 30 days, from start to finish. Winning candidates take office immediately after the election.

Minor parties must draw at least 3% of the total vote in order to be eligible for seats in parliament. Seats are awarded proportionately.

Right answer.  Parasites should not be able to fucking vote.

They're the weakest link in my State.  During the 2012 election we had people bringing stacks of them in with the handwriting being the same on all of the envelopes.  The only reason I was able to reject them was because they forgot to include the signature authorizing a third party to turn them in.  I'm sure more get fraudulently mailed out to the Registrar-Recorder's office.

Egalitarian ideals is the whole point of the entreprise.  Democracy is based on the principle of equality, the same principle underlying socialism.  They are peas in a pod.

Poll taxes were not held to be unconstitutional, they were made unconstitutional by amending the constitution.  IMO, the Federal government should not have any role in suffrage.  It should be left entirely up to the States, and I'd be fine with removing just about every provision related to suffrage in the Constitution.  They have been abused to intrude into the laws of States far above and beyond anything permitted by the Constitution, not just In terms of qualifications of suffrage, but also by forcing States to end geographic districting and other measures that produced systems of checks and balances in the States, allowing for the Left to dominate many States they couldn't before through urban dominance.  The damage to this country exceeds any good done.  The reasons for the amendments themselves are largely gone, anyways.

I voted disagree...

literacy should be a requirement.  

and sometimes I think being a landowner should be a requirement.

I'd have to disagree with your favouring of the universal franchise.  Yes, the point is to keep certain people from voting.  It is meant to prevent government by the masses.  The Scholastics defined democracy as government by the worst part of the people for their own benefit, while republic was defined as government by the better part of the people for the commonweal.  The worst part of the people is the part that needs to be excluded from political power as much as practicable.  The highest political goal is liberal, ordered, and good government which serves the commonweal.  The universal franchise works directly against such a goal; they are simply not compatible in the real world, as the common man does not have the requisite qualities needed for that in the preponderance of cases.  Switzerland might well be one of the only cases where anything close to that has been seen, and even they restricted the franchise, being one of the last to have universal suffrage in the West.

Look at the Founding Fathers and the political philosophers who were influential in their day.  You will see a consensus largely against the universal franchise and cognizant of the nature of man.  John Locke himself even lays out the reasons why there must be a qualified franchise.  Even more modern men, like Heinlein, provided the clues needed to realize why the franchise must be so.  Heinlein in Starship Troopers uses dialogue between characters to elucidate the point, the voting is power and power is force.  "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."  Voting equals the power to exert force over others, ultimately through violence by agents of the state, however atomized the power may be; when wielded collectively, it can be an exceptionally dangerous force.

Cognizant of the fact, John Locke tells us that the term "people" is "to signify only those who were possessed of such property as was sufficient to secure their fidelity to the interests of the state, and to make it probable that they were qualified to judge of those interests as far as was requisite for the due performance of the duty entrusted to them." Thomas Elrington, Locke's editor in the edition of the Two Treatises most familiar to the Funding Fathers, quotes Locke in his notes on the work as saying that while a child lacks an understanding to direct his own will, "he is not to have any will of his own to follow: He that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions," after which Elrington asks, "May not this incapacitating deficiency of understanding exists among adults as well as minors? and if any class of adults be, from inevitable circumstances, inferior in point of intellectual attainments, or any other qualities requisite to make them competent and unprejudiced judges of right and wrong in matters of polity, ought they not be in the same proportion inferior in political power?" It is a question which Locke answers in the affirmative, as did the Founders.

The reason why he answers in the affirmative is that if someone cannot be competent and unprejudiced judges of right and wrong in matters of polity, and they are granted what ultimately, as Heinlein points out, amounts to the power to exert violent force upon other people, you will have disaster.  You will have tyranny.  You will have mob rule.  You will have ruin.  So again, yes, the qualifications are meant to discriminate, to disenfranchise.  That's the entire point.  They exist to filter the great body of the populace to ensure that the general electorate is of the highest calibre practical to achieve, but not so small in number as to result in oligarchy.  Sure, it's aristocratic, but again, that's the point, and it's not a bad thing.  Heck, this is what one of the most egalitarian of the Founding Fathers had to say about aristocracy and the masses in matters of polity:



It really wasn't until the arrival of the ideas of the French Revolution on American shores that you started to see many leading Americans, mostly from newer generations than those involved in the Founding, promote the ideas of democracy and universal suffrage, to our detriment.

So, to the end of answering the question in the poll, I must again disagree that the only requirements should be citizenship, ID, and the age of majority.

I believe that there should be a qualified franchise meant to secure the aims described above.  To this end, I would propose these sorts of qualifications:

-citizenship in the polity in which one is voting (sticking with U.S. citizenship for every level of government is the easiest, though, and probably preferable to that end)

-not have been convicted of any class of treason, or any truly serious or violent felony, or any felony or other high crime that demonstrates propensity for public corruption/moral turpitude (we have way too many bullshit felonies, so I won't say there should be a blanket felony prohibition unless that is reformed); this can be waived by a conditional pardon that includes such components, or a full and unconditional pardon, or the withdrawal of the felony pleas with their subsequent dismissal, or the dismissal of the verdict and thus the convictions based on evidence or other factors

-be at least 21 years old (I would even be willing to consider 23; 25 is the highest I'd consider; maybe make 21-22 conditional upon achieving a bachelor's degree or better, or some other significant achievement among those below)

-meet residency requirements in respect to local, county, state, and national residency

-not be a recipient of public subsidy or any other redistribution of taxpayer wealth, or otherwise be in the net a tax recipient, excluding pay for employees, officers and agents of the government, contractors, military personnel, or those engaged in sales of goods or services to the government, pay including pensions, benefits, etc. as well as may be provided for by contract or agreement, or by law; this means that welfare, social security, tax credits that give you more than you put in, medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare subsidies, etc. are disqualifiers; also, you can't have been such a recipient for a certain period of time, nor have applied for the same for future receipt

-must not have shirked civic duties in any manner not permitted by law; so you have to do your jury duty, militia duty (if any), posse duty (if any), register for conscription into the militia or Federal military (if applicable), must not have voluntary withheld payment of taxes legally owed, serve in the military if conscripted, complete military or civil service to which you have a contractual obligation to do so, etc.

-provided that this can be done in a way that can't be tampered with (otherwise forget it), you must pass a rigorous exam on American civics and basic political theory with an emphasis on the principles underlying or most basic and highest laws, such as the constitution and the common law, and the constitution of the respective state, and of the principles of the Founding of the colonies and this country; if one has passed a high school, college, or university course that certifiably meets the standards of the test, then the requirement is fulfilled (a transcript providing proof must be provided); also, must demonstrate literacy; any tests, certifications, etc. must have a lot of transparency and proof of integrity and lack of bias

-have a voter ID (I think a special-purpose ID should be issued for voting), be registered and on the rolls, and present the ID or sufficient alternative proof (which would involve stringent standards)

-either be a freeholder of land of a certain minimum size or value, or which produces a certain value of income or commodities; own a business in a manner analogous to a freeholder and his property, and have it have a minimum value, size of property held, or income; have a minimum income (high incomes can also reduce the former requirements); have a minimum value of rents or chattels; have a minimum value of rent that you pay (it would be very high, basically high enough that you could easily buy fixed property if you wanted and more); or have a minimum (but lengthy) record of faithful and honourable public civil or military service and be financially independent (pensions would not detract from such a condition in this case, but could serve as proof of it); possess a doctorate (of the traditional variety) and be financially independent; lesser levels of education or of civil or military service can be used to reduce the requirements

-not be adjudicated mentally ill/insane or incapacitated, be a ward of the state or others, or anything else that demonstrates reduced mental capacity or capacity for independent thought

-no early voting, people who work must be provided with a reasonable amount of time to go and vote, very limited provisional voting, and very limited absentee voting (the reasons would be very limited and you would have to provide significant proof that you are the one who filled the ballot out and would, as usual, have to meet the deadlines, and would in any case be subject to review before the votes being added to the tallies)

-potentially higher qualifications needed to vote for upper legislative houses, national representatives, statewide offices, electors, etc., and higher qualifications to be a legislator or higher elector (such as a presidential elector)

The way the requirements are crafted.  Minimum values and/or sizes are the norm for land requirements, as is being a freeholder (no lien, mortgage, or other encumbrance).  Sometimes production by the land is used as well.  For multiple owners, the minimums could be made to apply to each share as well, so if the minimum size requirement was one acre, a piece of land owned by six people equally would have to be six acres, and would have to in its entirety be freely held.  Another thing seen in such qualifications is the application of different weights to different kinds of property, so desert land not much good for anything and with nothing built on or near it would have to have a much higher minimum value or size than, say, a residential, commercial, farming, or mining property.  These requirements were never just "own any quantity of land, no other stipulations attached."

And Pay taxes,,,not just get refund,,,PAY taxes. That way you vote on who spends YOUR money, not who spends somebody elses money.

Works for me.



 

Somebody would be right along to sell 1 square inch plots to the disenfranchised.



 

It doesn't work like that.  No property qualifications for voting ever written permitted such a thing.

Income taxes... they gotta put money into the game.

I always tell liberals that the requirements for voting should be the same as the requirements for carrying a concealed weapon.   Afterall. What's more dangerous: people with guns, or politicians who can authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
In NC this means:
Taking an 8 hour class to demonstrate competency.




Paying for a license.




Passing a background check.




Carrying an ID.
Then I tell them this is obviously not racist, since if it were, then the concealed handgun law should be struck down, for being racist.
Watch their little heads spin.
ETA::I always tell conservatives who want to make it everyone except people like them can't vote that: You should be required to have a Ph.D. from a STEM field.
 

Pay taxes to the level of government that the election is for. Income tax, sales tax, property tax, or whatever the case may be. Not a poll tax, just no taxation without representation and no representation without taxation.

This!  And pay either income and/property taxes

This.....Peeps have opened themselves up to all kinds of voter fraud in the interest of "Mah Time".

Getting Early/Mail-In Voting passed in a state is a Dem's wet dream.

If you go on the public dole, then yes.

How would that be enforced in the real world?

Would we have to get annual approvals from some bureaucracy verifying we are not receiving welfare?

Age needs to be bumped up to 25+ IMO.

Most kids don't even begin to start thinking for themselves until well after that

Periodic renewal, like a DL.  Also, the agency involved with voter registration and recording would have to be notified when someone goes on the dole by the agency providing the funds (the Feds might not bother, though).  Provide a means for a voter's qualifications to be challenged (many States already have this, including CA; you would just be applying it to more qualifications).  Punish people caught voting when not qualified as a form of voter fraud.  Some would slip through, but it would catch most of them.

I like this idea!

Literacy and not on government assistance.

You have to contribute.

I could give something like that a try.

People who earn none of their subsistence should not vote.

Not including people on disability or Social Security/Pensions though.

Yeah but everyone pays excise taxes.

Social Security and government disability payments are still welfare and represent an immoral redistribution of wealth.  They must not be exempted.  Pensions, on the other hand, are a form of compensation.

Property/wealth/income qualifications are more useful than taxes.  There was a time where only a minority of people were liable for taxation.  Many who did not have to pay taxes were qualified voters (freeholders).  Some of the early States/colonies did use being a taxpayer as a qualification, but this faded away rather quickly, aside from poll taxes.

If you make voter ID mandatory, changed the voting age to 30 and not allowed anyone to vote that was on any form of government assistance aside from Social Security Democrats would have a hard time ever getting elected to any office.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing is like Pandora's Box.  Once you let the evil out it is damn hard to put back in.  People have an interest in keeping their SS or other welfare, or on having power, even if it is unwarranted, and will vote accordingly, tending to doom efforts to roll things back.  It would probably take catastrophe to actually turn things around.

As for age, since the minimum for the House is 25, I would say it probably shouldn't be higher unless you intend to raise the ages for holding office (which require amending constitutions).

That is why the Democrats want the voting age lowered to 16.

No felony convictions.

Legal Age.

Any govt issued photo ID.  

If not on disability or over the age of retirement you must have been issued a W2 for one of the previous 4 years.

 

^ ^ ^ ^ T H I S ^ ^ ^ ^


The 19th Amendment was the beginning of the downfall of this country and the outcome of this years election could be its end.

Anyone who disagrees with me shouldn't be able to vote.

U.S. Citizen, twenty-one years of age or older, and owns land on which a house could be built (so Soros doesn't sell fractional shares of land a dollar a pop).

yep, voter card issued with tax return.

This. Either you are a citizen, or you are not.

No form of government assistance.

I can't agree with the Social Security part because people had to work for that (well the vast majority did)..............disability, you have a point.

I voted yes, but should have added this.

Everything is taxed, therefore everyone pays taxes.

Fuel tax, income tax, property tax, road tax, dog tax, sales tax.... any of these work?

So basically, plantation owners only.

I think I can get on board with a giant "fuck you" on that.

We don't really need to go back to the mid nineteenth century.   It was a disaster.

Of course not.

not incarcerated

No, they didn't. They worked to pay other people. Current workers are paying the current recipients. It's a wealth redistribution programme like any other form of welfare disguised as a retirement investment for political purposes.