[art_director]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You know, the UK has an absolutely outstanding system. When you go into the booth, you get a pencil, and you mark an X next to the name of the candidate you want. There are deliberately spoiled ballots, but no ambiguous ones. Voting machines of all types must die.

i'd buy into that crazy new technology.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You know, the UK has an absolutely outstanding system. When you go into the booth, you get a pencil, and you mark an X next to the name of the candidate you want. There are deliberately spoiled ballots, but no ambiguous ones. Voting machines of all types must die.

Originally Posted by art_director 

i'd buy into that crazy new technology.

The only problem with this is the time it would take to count the votes.

The best compromise is what we have in Arizona, optical scanners that print the total as you go, and you have hard copies to verify the vote.


Real easy for most, connect the lines with a felt marker, and there is no confusion as who you are voting for. You could even put pictures next to the text for those that can't read. This ballot would be flagged by the machine and the poll worker will inform you you have an incomplete ballot.

[peeb]

You know, in the UK it takes about a day to count the vote. It's really not that big a deal - you get a bunch of people to sort them in big rooms, and each party has a bunch of people who can supervise and spot-check, and audit a certain number. Hand counting is just fine.
Having said that - the system you are describing looks pretty good.

[nonhuman]

Could you not find a picture of it in which the voter didn't **** it up?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Could you not find a picture of it in which the voter didn't **** it up?

Yeah, Chongo, could you show us a ballot that was filled out by a Republican?

[peeb]

This is exactly why it's not a good idea to restrict the right to vote.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Not Insane
Not in prison or parole
18 Years or older
Speak English
US Citizen

Also, read English.

[nonhuman]

Why should English be a requirement to vote? The US doesn't have an official language.

[peeb]

This list is seditious nonsense - these restrictions are ridiculous, and lead to abuses.

[nonhuman]

I dunno, the requirement that you be a citizen seems vaguely reasonable.

[peeb]

Why?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Not Insane

Well, there goes most of MacNN.

[peeb]

The Soviet Union also restricted the political rights of the insane.
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/145.pdf

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Why?

Why do we bother defining ourselves as a sovereign political entity?

[peeb]

Not sure what that has to do with voting requirements.

[CreepDogg]

OK, I'll bite. Being a citizen seems a reasonable way to show you have a self-interest in bettering said political entity.

That said, any requirements need to be very simplistic and binary. If there's a 'test' or complex rules, whoever is in power will skew the evaluation criteria toward those who will vote in their favor. It may start out with the intent of being objective, but could too easily be pulled away from that.

Some would say that's what happened in Florida in 2000.

[peeb]

There are many people in the US who have a "self-interest in bettering said political entity" - I fail to see why being a citizen is a valuable distinction on which to base suffrage. Do you have anything other than that it 'seems reasonable to you' to back up this argument?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Not sure what that has to do with voting requirements.

It has everything to do with voting requirements. Unless we understand the philosophy behind the existence of our nation and the reasons that it operates the way it does, how are we going to decide what restrictions, if any, should be placed on who decide the direction the nation takes?

If we let anyone vote, even if they aren't a citizen, then what does that mean for the US as a sovereign entity? If anyone can participate in our democratic process, does that mean that everyone is a de facto citizen? Certainly non-citizens would then be able to vote people into power who would give them rights that they ordinarily wouldn't have (they do outnumber us citizens, after all). Theoretically it could become law that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are guaranteed to all people regardless of citizenship and that the US is then obligated to protect those rights, by force if necessary.

[peeb]

Many of the rights under the Constitution already apply to all people. That does not mean that the US is obliged to protect them outside its territory.
Not excluding non-citizens for not being citizens is not the same as allowing the entire population of the globe to vote. For example, allowing all residents of the US to vote would not place the US in the position of having more non-citizen voters than citizens.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Also, read English.

I didn't believe it was a requirement to read English, since that would affect all Blind people. I believe that it should be a requirement to speak English, so someone could read the list of candidates to you.

Many people can learn to speak English, but have failed to learn how to read and write English.

I believe it is a requirement to learn English in order to receive US citizenship.

[Buckaroo]

I also believe that it is a requirement that all Pilots that fly into the US must speak English so they can communicate to ATC. For some reason I also thought this was a standard language for most other country ATCs.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I believe it is a requirement to learn English in order to receive US citizenship.

Bollocks. Of course it is not.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

The Founding Fathers did have the census in mind. In fact, the first census of 1790 enumerated the names, family members and addresses of every family in what was the United States of America.

I doubt that is fact at all. It's highly unlikely that many remote citizens, living on uncharted land in the wilderness, were counted. My ex's grandmother, who was a child in the 1890s, told us years ago that, even when she was a child, it would take several days to get from Detroit to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan by train. I'm reasonably certain there wasn't some census taker riding around on a horse scouring remote settlements, one hundred years earlier, counting people, and reporting accurate figures back. Even today's census is only a statistical guess.

To answer the OP's question, IMO citizenship should be required. As one who came to America many years ago, and who obtained citizenship via naturalization when my parents became citizens five years after arriving, it galls me to no end to hear people complain about the government and political processes when they've made no attempt to becomes citizens. I have a cousin whom I love dearly, who used to complain constantly about taxes, etc., but she wasn't a citizen. One day I told her to shut up and become a citizen and then she would have a right to complain, and, more importantly, do something about expressing her viewpoint to her representatives. She actually listened and became a citizen.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by peeb 

There are many people in the US who have a "self-interest in bettering said political entity" - I fail to see why being a citizen is a valuable distinction on which to base suffrage. Do you have anything other than that it 'seems reasonable to you' to back up this argument?

I didn't realize I needed backup to state my opinion...

Isn't that what voting is - collecting opinions on who should hold a particular public office?

Anyway - citizenry is a reasonable measure to me because it includes those who are serious and 'on record' for being here (or not being here, as the case may be), and having an interest in who leads them or otherwise holds public office. I care about who represents me (not that it's done any good at the federal level recently...) and the philosophy they follow to make laws and policies. Non-citizens may have another interest that is not in the best interest of my country, but of THEM.

Is it a perfect measure? No. What would be? There are plenty of idiots who were born here who may not be interested in the best interest of the country. But at least it tries, on balance, to place the interest in the right place.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by peeb 

For example, allowing all residents of the US to vote would not place the US in the position of having more non-citizen voters than citizens.

Not at a national level, but consider whether this could have an impact at a local level. Is that desirable?

[peeb]

Of course it is - why not?

[CreepDogg]

Because it makes it that much less likely that the dominant non-citizen group is acting in the collective best interest of the city/county/state/country. If they haven't gone to the trouble to become citizens, why should they have equal right to choose government with those who have? I guess it comes down to if you want government to represent citizens or residents. It's a small but distinct difference and it makes sense to me that the privilege of suffrage comes with citizenship.

Some might say the rules for citizenship are unfair and arbitrary, but that's a different discussion...

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by peeb 

There are many people in the US who have a "self-interest in bettering said political entity"

How would you propose they demonstrate their interest?

[christ]

Don't vote - it simply encourages politicians, whilst making no material difference.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

How would you propose they demonstrate their interest?

I could imagine a number of systems, but living there and turning up to vote would be a pretty significant demonstration of interest, I would have thought.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Because it makes it that much less likely that the dominant non-citizen group is acting in the collective best interest of the city/county/state/country. If they haven't gone to the trouble to become citizens, why should they have equal right to choose government with those who have? I guess it comes down to if you want government to represent citizens or residents. It's a small but distinct difference and it makes sense to me that the privilege of suffrage comes with citizenship.

Some might say the rules for citizenship are unfair and arbitrary, but that's a different discussion...

There you go - you've answered your own question. If the rules of suffrage are unfair and arbitrary, that's a problem. In fact, any time you limit who can vote, no matter what the intent, the result is corrupt, unfair and arbitrary - far better not to try to disenfranchise people.

[Chongo]

Prohibiting the vote to citizens of the United States over 18 is covered by the 14th, 19th and 26th amendments. They do not say residents of the United States
The basic requirement for voting in the US
1)At least 18 years of age
2)A citizen
3)Have not participated in rebellion or other crime

NARA | The National Archives Experience

AMENDMENT XXVI

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIX

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

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 sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when 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.

[peeb]

Yes, thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious - the current law does disenfranchise people based on citizenship. I thought we were discussing whether everyone should be allowed to vote, not whether they were able to right now.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I could imagine a number of systems, but living there and turning up to vote would be a pretty significant demonstration of interest, I would have thought.

Interest, yes. But not enough demonstration of interest in establishing a positive outcome for the country in my opinion. It could just as easily be someone voting maliciously (i.e. intentionally voting for the WORST candidate). Of course a citizen could do this too, but it's a reasonable filter for this type of activity.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by peeb 

There you go - you've answered your own question. If the rules of suffrage are unfair and arbitrary, that's a problem. In fact, any time you limit who can vote, no matter what the intent, the result is corrupt, unfair and arbitrary - far better not to try to disenfranchise people.

You misconstrued my statement. Let me be more clear - I think it makes sense to have a tie between citizenship and suffrage. If some are disenfranchised in a significant way because of this, then we should look to change the citizenship rules to include them, NOT to allow non-citizens to vote.

So a risky analogy would be a proxy vote in a corporation. You have to be a stockholder to vote for board members, etc. - that is, you have to have an interest in the success of the corporation. You can't just 'show up' and say you're interested. (I say this analogy is risky because I often argue that government and corporate interests are tied too tightly today. But I think the nature of the demonstration of interest - stockholder vs. citizenship - is different enough that the analogy holds.)

[peeb]

Well, people have expressed the opinion that we should disenfranchise non-citizens, but given no rational justification for that. Being a shareholder in a company is a spurious analogy, that is more analogous to only allowing tax-payers to vote. Why can't you just 'show up' and say you are interested? Why do you think that would produce worse government than than disenfranchising people who show up without documentation? In many ways, these people have shown more commitment to the country, by voluntarily showing up rather than just finding themselves there by accident of birth.
I understand that you hold this opinion, I wonder whether you have any rational arguments to justify it.

[ApeInTheShell]

So does this discussion favor some sort of national socialism system to take over our voting rights? Of course, the only people who meet these requirements on the standardized tests given to voters should support the socialist/demcratic party, hmm?
Everyone else should be classified as idiots because they voted Republican or Green.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I understand that you hold this opinion, I wonder whether you have any rational arguments to justify it.

Uh, yeah, I've stated that it has to do with the alignment of interest. Put another way - in general, non-citizens are citizens of another country. So if they're allowed to vote - in whose interest are they voting? Their country of residence or their country of citizenship? People here by accident of birth may not have any other credentials, but they are generally not citizens of another country, and in a sense, 'have nowhere else to go'.

Do you have a rational argument as to why allowing any resident to vote would be better?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Uh, yeah, I've stated that it has to do with the alignment of interest. Put another way - in general, non-citizens are citizens of another country. So if they're allowed to vote - in whose interest are they voting? Their country of residence or their country of citizenship? People here by accident of birth may not have any other credentials, but they are generally not citizens of another country, and in a sense, 'have nowhere else to go'.

Do you have a rational argument as to why allowing any resident to vote would be better?

What about people with dual-citizenship? Quite a few of my friends who are US citizens are also citizens of other countries (mostly the UK, Australia, and Russia). Not to mention the fact that every Jew is eligible for Israeli citizenship, and many have it.

What about people who left the US to go live in another country, but retain their US citizenship because it's still a very useful passport to have? Depending on where you emigrate to and under what circumstances there might not be any compelling reason to have citizenship of that country, whereas there are a lot of situations in which it would be useful to have a US passport.

And of course there's the fact that any two people who were born in the US and never left might have completely different ideas about what's best for the country to the point that each might think the other is actively trying to harm it.

I think peeb is definitely right that citizenship does nothing to show where a person's interests lie. I'm not entirely convinced that it would be better to allow non-citizens to vote, but it's definitely an idea worth considering.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Uh, yeah, I've stated that it has to do with the alignment of interest. Put another way - in general, non-citizens are citizens of another country. So if they're allowed to vote - in whose interest are they voting? Their country of residence or their country of citizenship? People here by accident of birth may not have any other credentials, but they are generally not citizens of another country, and in a sense, 'have nowhere else to go'.

Do you have a rational argument as to why allowing any resident to vote would be better?

Yes - I have made it - any disenfranchisement eventually leads to abuses - the history of disenfranchisement in the US is an ugly one. Residents have a legitimate interest in the governance of the country they chose to come to to live and work.
Dual nationals are allowed to vote in the US - are you really proposing that they should not be? That is the logical conclusion of your argument. Having 'nowhere else to go' seems a very odd criteria for people to be allowed to vote.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I was under the impression US citizens aren't even supposed to carry dual citizenship.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I was under the impression US citizens aren't even supposed to carry dual citizenship.

I think that's technically true, but tons of people do it.

[peeb]

The law was changed in the 70s - it is legal now.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I don't believe it's true as they told my father the opposite when he became a citizen in the 90s.

Edit: Actually isn't it part of your pledge or whatever you call it that you renounce your former citizenship?

[peeb]

No. Look it up on the State Dept website if you don't believe me. I can find a link later if you can't find it.
IIRC it might still apply to some countries like Cuba etc, but in the main this is not the case. I can't account for what someone might have told your father, it is quite possible that they were at pains to point out that the pledge of allegiance he renounces his 'allegiance' to another country, but not his citizenship.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Does it list when they started allowing dual citizenship?

[peeb]

Here it is. It does not give the date - IIRC it was the 70s, but I am not 100% sure on that. The State Dept site says that US law does not mention it at all, so I suspect that the law was just repealed or overturned.
US State Department Services Dual Nationality

[Chongo]

there are some countries that allow permanent resident aliens to vote, but there are restrictions
Right of foreigners to vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Here it is. It does not give the date - IIRC it was the 70s, but I am not 100% sure on that. The State Dept site says that US law does not mention it at all, so I suspect that the law was just repealed or overturned.
US State Department Services Dual Nationality

It is not unknown for some to have dual passports in addition to dual citizenship.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Wait... there's a difference? Because then I guess I was referring to the latter.