| ▲ | rayiner 2 hours ago | |
Of course prisoners should not be allowed to vote, for the same reason as children. Expanding the electorate for the sake of expanding it doesn’t make the result better. Instead, the electorate should be narrowed to property owning people who have an IQ above 85 (within one SD of median) and two grandparents born in the U.S. (so culturally assimilated). | ||
| ▲ | buellerbueller 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |
>Of course prisoners should not be allowed to vote I don't follow. Please explain. >Instead, the electorate should be narrowed to property owning people who have an IQ above 85 (within one SD of median) and two grandparents born in the U.S. (so culturally assimilated). Yeah, just like the good old days when we had literacy tests in this country to vote down south. You're literally calling for a return of Jim Crow. | ||
| ▲ | JKCalhoun an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Sarcasm much? Ha ha, you forgot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_paper_bag_test | ||
| ▲ | mystraline an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> Of course prisoners should not be allowed to vote, for the same reason as children. Prisoners in jail can be there for a multitude of reasons. But the main difference is that they were likely of voting age. Some states even do allow prisoners to vote. Who more than anyone here is subject to its laws than people imprisoned? It also naturally penalizes poor people, since they demonstrably get less 'legal equality', and thus go to prison more. As for children. Thats a different issue. The moment this government(s) started tried children as adults is when and the voting age should have been lowered to the age of 'tried as an adult'. > Expanding the electorate for the sake of expanding it doesn’t make the result better. So, you do not believe or accept democratic principles. It is no different than "get enough eyeballs on a problem, and every problem is shallow". > Instead, the electorate should be narrowed to property owning people who have an IQ above 85 (within one SD of median) and two grandparents born in the U.S. (so culturally assimilated). Holy crap, the dog whistles. Sprinkle phrenology (IQ) in there. Used to defend treating black people as slaves cause "we(royal) were doing them a favor" Literally grandfather clause, which disenfranchised former slaves. And property-owning, so a strong retreat to royalist 2nd son tradition. Pray tell, you are only talking about land with property-owning, right? | ||